Da'naxda'xw First Nation v. Peters

Da'naxda'xw First Nation v. Peters

Both parties failed to satisfy the conjunctive RJR test because, although a serious issue to be tried exists, neither party adduced clear, non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm; as a result the discretionary injunctions were refused and both interlocutory motions were dismissed.

Citation
2019 FC 1568
Parties
Chief and Applicant (band Council): William Gordon Glendale; Councillor and Applicant: Michael Jacobson-Weston; Councillor and Applicant: Annie Glendale; Respondent (hereditary Chief): Bill Peters; Respondent (hereditary Chief): Norman Glendale; Respondent (hereditary Chief): Robert Duncan
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (competing Governance Claims) With Interlocutory Motions / Interlocutory Motions Heard and Dismissed (motions for Injunctive Relief)
Outcome
Both motions dismissed for failure to establish irreparable harm; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Band Governance, Hereditary Chiefs, Customary Law, Interlocutory Injunctions, Irreparable Harm, Interpretation of Consent Orders
Source Language
English
Aboriginal Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies (injunctions) Band Governance Hereditary Chiefs Customary Law Interlocutory Injunctions +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Gordon Glendale

Chief and Applicant (band Council)

Michael Jacobson-Weston

Councillor and Applicant

Annie Glendale

Councillor and Applicant

Bill Peters

Respondent (hereditary Chief)

Norman Glendale

Respondent (hereditary Chief)

Robert Duncan

Respondent (hereditary Chief)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (competing Governance Claims) With Interlocutory Motions / Interlocutory Motions Heard and Dismissed (motions for Injunctive Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who has lawful governing authority over the Da’naxda’xw First Nation (band council or hereditary chiefs council)?
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted to either party under the RJR three-part test
  3. 3 Whether irreparable harm has been established by either party

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties failed to satisfy the conjunctive RJR test because, although a serious issue to be tried exists, neither party adduced clear, non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm; as a result the discretionary injunctions were refused and both interlocutory motions were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both motions dismissed for failure to establish irreparable harm; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Both interlocutory motions dismissed
  • No order as to costs