Adolph v. St'at'imc First Nation

Adolph v. St'at'imc First Nation

The application was dismissed because the applicant, as an individual, lacked standing to assert collective Aboriginal rights absent authorization from the collective or its lawful representatives; alternatively the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, failed to establish irreparable harm,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 BCSC 1940
Parties
Proposed Petitioner: Roger Adolph; Proposed Respondents: St'át'imc Chiefs Council and the St'át'imc Authority
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Pre Trial Injunction Application / Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; costs awarded to the St'át'imc Chiefs Council and the St'át'imc Authority.
Legal Topics
Standing, Ratification and Mandate, Collective Rights, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience, Undertaking as to Damages, Costs
Source Language
english
Aboriginal Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Environmental Law Standing Ratification and Mandate Collective Rights +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Adolph

Proposed Petitioner

St'át'imc Chiefs Council and the St'át'imc Authority

Proposed Respondents

Procedural Posture

Pre Trial Injunction Application / Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an individual band member has standing to bring claims asserting collective Aboriginal rights
  2. 2 Whether the correct and necessary parties were named for injunctive relief against multiparty agreements
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a serious issue to be tried

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant, as an individual, lacked standing to assert collective Aboriginal rights absent authorization from the collective or its lawful representatives; alternatively the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience strongly favored respondents given the ratification, the multiparty nature of the Agreements and the significant and immediate harm an injunction would cause to communities; respondents were awarded costs.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; costs awarded to the St'át'imc Chiefs Council and the St'át'imc Authority.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • St'át'imc Chiefs Council and St'át'imc Authority awarded their costs of the application