After reading this judgment I found a couple of interesting submissions and reasons for judgment. Not the least of which involves the following:
 The only harm that I can infer would accrue to the defendant from a preservation of the plaintiff’s option to purchase pending a hearing of the issue on the merits is that the defendant would be delayed or hindered in marketing the premises in the intervening period of time. The defendant states in submissions that an injunction would prevent the defendant from dealing with the premises in accordance with its mandate from the provincial government to divest itself of all its real property. There is no evidence as to the terms of any such mandate or what losses may occur if there are delays experienced. The defendant also suggests that an injunction would be in place for some time as this action is unsuitable for Rule 18A summary disposition given the conflicts in evidence the require findings of credibility to resolve.
So BCRP tells the court that a interim interloculatory injunction prevents them from doing the governments bidding ie : divesting itself of all real properties. They say this has been mandated. Yet they fail to show evidence in court?
It will be interesting to see the final results of this iterim injunction.
Many Many thanks for anonymous for forwarding us this information. Gary E