THE ENOCH CREE NATION as represented by CHIEF RON VINCENT MORIN v. LYLE MORIN, NOLA WANUCH,, 2014 FCA 256

Source: Federal Court of Appeal

Date: 2014-11-03

Jurisdiction: Federal

Docket: A-75-14

Citation: 2014 FCA 256

Opinion

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.

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 theRoyal Bank of Canada, for carrying on any activities related to the development of an aerodrome or airport on lands situated next to theappellants’ 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 noerror 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 tothe 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 shownthat irreparable harm would ensue if the injunction was not granted.

For example the evidence of harm adduced before the judge rose nohigher than expressions of concern, albeit serious expressions, but not “a strong case of probability” that the harm will arise: seeConnaught Laboratories Ltd. v. Smithkline Beecham Pharma Inc., (FC), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1851, 86 C.P.R. (3d) 36citing 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 asexpeditiously 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-75-14STYLE OF CAUSE: THE ENOCH CREE NATION ET AL v. HER MAJESTYTHE QUEEN ET AL PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton,Alberta DATE OF HEARING: November3, 2014 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADONJ.A. PELLETIERJ.A. STRATASJ.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADONJ.A. APPEARANCES: Will Willier For The APPELLANTS Kirk Lambrecht Q.C. For The RespondentS Parkland Airport Development Corporation, CPL6Holdings, Robert Gilgen, Silke Gilgen and AaronSoos SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Willier and Company Calgary, AB For The AppELLANTS Shores Jardine LLP Edmonton, AB For The RespondentS

Loading document…