Temagami First Nation v. Turner

Temagami First Nation v. Turner

The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed because, although there are serious issues to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not justify interlocutory relief; interlocutory measures would risk deciding substantive issues without a complete record, while the incumbent council retained control of essential functions and recognition pending a final decision, so the appropriate remedy was to expedite the underlying judicial review and include the interlocutory evidence in the record.

Citation
2008 FC 1287
Parties
Applicant: Temagami First Nation; Respondents: John Turner; Jamie Saville; Joseph Twain; Patricia Neu; Roxanne Ayotte; John Mckenzie; Steven Laronde; Arnold Paul
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion for Interim Injunction; Expedited Scheduling of Underlying Judicial Review
Outcome
Motion dismissed; interim injunction and stays denied; underlying judicial review expedited
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Judicial Review, Standing Under Federal Courts Act S.18(1), Band Council Governance, Constitutional Amendment of Tribal Constitution, Expedited Hearing
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Indigenous Law Civil Procedure Federal Court Practice Interim Injunction Judicial Review Standing Under Federal Courts Act S.18(1) Band Council Governance +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Temagami First Nation

Applicant

John Turner; Jamie Saville; Joseph Twain; Patricia Neu; Roxanne Ayotte; John Mckenzie; Steven Laronde; Arnold Paul

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion for Interim Injunction; Expedited Scheduling of Underlying Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established irreparable harm
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for an interim injunction was dismissed because, although there are serious issues to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not justify interlocutory relief; interlocutory measures would risk deciding substantive issues without a complete record, while the incumbent council retained control of essential functions and recognition pending a final decision, so the appropriate remedy was to expedite the underlying judicial review and include the interlocutory evidence in the record.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; interim injunction and stays denied; underlying judicial review expedited

Orders

  • The motion for an interim injunction and stays of the resolutions is dismissed
  • The hearing of the underlying application for judicial review will be expedited