Source: Civil Litigation (Feb. 2010). pp. 236-237 Bottom. Footnote 37.
Above note 1 at 2.550—70. See also Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. CKPG Tele- vision, [1992) 3 W.W.R 279 (B.C.C.A.), a case involving breach of a television broadcasting agreement, in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal sets out a much more detailed analysis of the status quo: "[Tlhere are at least three separate aspects to the consideration of the status quo. I think that all three are conceptually important but that their respective importance to the assessment of the balance of convenience in any particular case will vary with the circum-
stances. The first aspect involves a consideration of which [37.1] party took the step which first brought about the alteration in their relationship which led to an alleged actionable breach of the rights of one of the parties [End of 37.1]; the second aspect involves a consideration of which [37.2] party took the action which is said to be an actionable breach of the rights of the other party [End of 37.2]; and the third aspect involves a consideration of the nature of the conduct which is said to be wrongful and which is being carried on at the time that the application for the interim injunc- tion is brought" (at para. 26).
Mustn't the parties in 37.1 and 37.2 be the same?
If not, I'm overlooking the distinction: how can these 2 parties differ?