Differing Approaches to Interim Orders: Why Standards Matter

I am pleased to share that the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia (CLEBC) has published my paper, “Differing Approaches to Interim Orders in Regulatory Proceedings,” as part of its Practice Point series. This paper was originally presented at CLEBC’s Interim Remedies and Injunctions course, available for rebroadcast through CLEBC’s Courses on Demand.

Interim regulatory orders are designed to protect the public, but they often move quickly—sometimes without notice. In these circumstances, clarity and consistency around the evidentiary standard regulators must meet is critical. Yet, courts across BC have taken divergent approaches when interpreting identical statutory language, creating uncertainty around evidentiary thresholds like serious question, prima facie case, and reasonable grounds.

These distinctions are not merely theoretical. They have significant implications for fairness, transparency, and cost-effective advocacy. For counsel advising clients under the pressure of urgent regulatory action, understanding these standards is essential to predicting risk and shaping litigation strategy.

The Practice Point examines these differing approaches and offers practical insight into navigating this patchwork of evidentiary thresholds. My aim is to equip lawyers with the tools to better guide clients facing intrusive interim orders in highly regulated environments.

You can access the full paper free of charge through CLEBC here. The Interim Remedies and Injunctions course will also be rebroadcast on March 3, 2026 as part of CLEBC’s Jump Start series,

For lawyers practicing in regulatory law or advising clients in industries where interim orders are common, I hope this resource provides clarity and supports effective advocacy in an area where speed and process often collide.