Enoch Cree Nation v. Canada

Enoch Cree Nation v. Canada

The appeal is dismissed because the Federal Court judge did not err in law or in the exercise of his discretion: the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong probability that the alleged harm would occur, and the balance of convenience did not justify an interlocutory injunction; the appropriate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 FCA 256
Parties
Appellant: The Enoch Cree Nation et al; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; Respondent: The Minister of Transport; Respondent: The Minister of Environment; Respondent: Parkland Airport Development Corporation; Respondent: CPL6 Holdings Ltd.; Respondent: Robert Gilgen; Respondent: Silke Gilgen; Respondent: Aaron Soos; Respondent: The Royal Bank of Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (interlocutory Injunction) / Oral Hearing on Appeal From Federal Court Order Dismissing Motion for Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Irreparable Harm, Standard of Review, Judicial Discretion, Aerodrome Development
Source Language
en
Aboriginal Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Interlocutory Injunctions Irreparable Harm Standard of Review Judicial Discretion +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Enoch Cree Nation et al

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Respondent

The Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Respondent

The Minister of Transport

Respondent

The Minister of Environment

Respondent

Parkland Airport Development Corporation

Respondent

CPL6 Holdings Ltd.

Respondent

Robert Gilgen

Respondent

Silke Gilgen

Respondent

Aaron Soos

Respondent

The Royal Bank of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (interlocutory Injunction) / Oral Hearing on Appeal From Federal Court Order Dismissing Motion for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court erred in refusing an interlocutory injunction to restrain development of an aerodrome adjacent to the appellants' reserve
  2. 2 Whether the appellants established irreparable harm
  3. 3 Whether there was an error of law or in the exercise of discretion by the trial judge

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Federal Court judge did not err in law or in the exercise of his discretion: the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong probability that the alleged harm would occur, and the balance of convenience did not justify an interlocutory injunction; the appropriate remedy is to proceed to trial expeditiously.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order of the Federal Court dated January 20, 2014 (2014 FC 63) refusing the interlocutory injunction is affirmed