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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Federal Court erred in refusing an interlocutory injunction to restrain development of an aerodrome adjacent to the appellants' reserve
- 2 Whether the appellants established irreparable harm
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Enoch Cree Nation v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2014-11-03 Neutral citation 2014 FCA 256 File numbers A-75-14 Decision Content Date: 20141103 Docket: A-75-14 Citation: 2014 FCA 256 CORAM: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. STRATAS J.A. Docket: A-75-14 BETWEEN: THE ENOCH CREE NATION as represented by CHIEF RON VINCENT MORIN and LYLE MORIN, NOLA WANUCH, JOHN THOMAS JR., BILLY MORIN, LORNA MORIN, LORNE MORIN, KELLY MORIN, WAYNE MORIN and SHANE MORIN, BAND COUNCILLORS acting on their own behalf and on behalf of ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ENOCH CREE NATION Appellants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT, THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, PARKLAND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CPL6 HOLDINGS LTD., ROBERT GILGEN, SILKE GILGEN, AARON SOOS and THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Respondents Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 3, 2014. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 3, 2014. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. Date: 20141103 Docket: A-75-14 Citation: 2014 FCA 256 CORAM: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. STRATAS J.A. Docket: A-75-14 BETWEEN: THE ENOCH CREE NATION as represented by CHIEF RON VINCENT MORIN and LYLE MORIN, NOLA WANUCH, JOHN THOMAS JR., BILLY MORIN, LORNA MORIN, LORNE MORIN, KELLY MORIN, WAYNE MORIN and SHANE MORIN, BAND COUNCILLORS acting on their own behalf and on behalf of ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ENOCH CREE NATION Appellants and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA as represented by THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT, THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, PARKLAND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CPL6 HOLDINGS LTD., ROBERT GILGEN, SILKE GILGEN, AARON SOOS and THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on November 3, 2014). NADON J.A. [1] This is an appeal from an order dated January 20, 2014 of Mr. Justice Phelan of the Federal Court (2014 FC 63) dismissing the appellants’ motion. We dismissed the appellant’s motion for an injunction against the respondents, other than Her Majesty the Queen, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Environment and the Royal Bank of Canada, for carrying on any activities related to the development of an aerodrome or airport on lands situated next to the appellants’ reserve. [2] We have not been persuaded that there is any basis to interfere with the judge’s decision. In our view, the judge made no error of law nor did he err in the exercise of his discretion. [3] Although the appellants argue that the judge did not give proper weight to their evidence, we are satisfied, having regard to the standard of review, that on the evidence before him it was open to the judge to conclude, as he did, that the appellants had not shown that irreparable harm would ensue if the injunction was not granted. For example the evidence of harm adduced before the judge rose no higher than expressions of concern, albeit serious expressions, but not “a strong case of probability” that the harm will arise: see Connaught Laboratories Ltd. v. Smithkline Beecham Pharma Inc., [1998] F.C.J. No. 1851, 86 C.P.R. (3d) 36 citing Attorney General v. Corporation of Manchester [1893] 2 Ch. D. 87. [4] In concluding, it appears to us that many of the concerns raised by the appellants could be addressed by proceeding to trial as expeditiously as possible. [5] The appeal shall therefore be dismissed with costs. "M. Nadon" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: A-75-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ENOCH CREE NATION ET AL v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ET AL PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: November 3, 2014 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. STRATAS J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A. APPEARANCES: Will Willier For The APPELLANTS Kirk Lambrecht Q.C. For The RespondentS Parkland Airport Development Corporation, CPL6 Holdings, Robert Gilgen, Silke Gilgen and Aaron Soos SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Willier and Company Calgary, AB For The AppELLANTS Shores Jardine LLP Edmonton, AB For The RespondentS