INJUNCTIONS |
Paul v. Canada
T-646-01
2002 FCT 615, Lemieux J.
31/5/02
81 pp.
Application for interlocutory injunction ordering defendants to refrain from taking further steps toward completion, implementation of Final Agreement referred to in statement of claim until certain conditions complied with--On January 7, 2000, defendants signed Agreement-in-Principle (AIP)-- AIP leading to Final Agreement which, if and when ratified, will be comprehensive land claims, self-government agreement recognized under Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 for North Slave Region (NSR) in Northwest Territories (NWT)-- Plaintiff Clem Paul Métis living in Yellowknife, NWT-- Neither Dogrib nor descendant of Dogrib ancestry--North Slave Métis Alliance (NSMA) incorporated in November 1996 grouping three existing Métis organizations in NSR-- On April 12, 2001, plaintiffs issued statement of claim against defendants, claiming Indigenous Métis of NSR, descendants of historic Red River Manitoba Métis families who settled there, distinct, unique Aboriginal people--Defendants not recognizing existence of Indigenous Métis of NSR as separate, distinct Aboriginal people or community having Aboriginal rights, title in NSR--Plaintiffs having onus of satisfying tripartite test for grant of interlocutory injunction: (1) serious issue to be tried; (2) irreparable harm if injunction not granted; and (3) balance of inconvenience in their favour--Court will not issue interlocutory injunction against Crown, Minister of Crown in constitutional cases unless, in exceptional circumstances, motions judge can decide merits of action at interlocutory stage, not case herein--Interlocutory injunction not available against Canada--Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) has not discharged onus of convincing Court it has no jurisdiction to issue interlocutory injunction against GNWT--GNWT's preliminary objection rejected-- Plaintiffs' action not containing fatal flaw--prematurity-- constituting bar to plaintiffs from obtaining interlocutory injunction prohibiting further negotiations towards Final Agreement between defendants on Dogrib Nation--Violation of rights claimed by plaintiffs not dependent upon legislative action but upon alleged yet-to-be proven existing aboriginal rights--Serious question to be tried test not stringent one, especially in Charter cases, because of difficulties involved in deciding complex factual, legal issues based upon limited evidence available on interlocutory injunction--Plaintiffs arguing action raised many serious issues--Issues raised by plaintiffs serious ones--Plaintiffs have met low threshold of serious issue test--Plaintiffs having burden of establishing irreparable harm they will suffer unless injunction granted-- Evidence must be clear, not speculative--Plaintiffs must show they will suffer irreparable harm between now, date of trial, harm which could not be remedied by Court should they succeed in action--Much of irreparable harm evidence deposed by Mr. Paul aiming at long-term, not at short-term- period of time between now, trial of action--Non-derogation clause in Agreement generally ensuring adjustment will take place to make space for rights which Court will have found Indigenous Métis of NSR had--Individualized assertions of irreparable harm advanced by plaintiffs in short term founded on misreading of purpose, scope of Final Agreement, based on erroneous assumptions--In many cases, fear of harm speculative--Final Agreement not about settlement of rights of Indigenous Métis in NSR, but settlement of rights of Dogrib Nation living primarily in four Dogrib communities in NSR--Plaintiffs have not demonstrated irreparable harm justifying need for interlocutory injunction during narrow time frame between now, trial of action--In all constitutional cases, public interest must be considered in assessing balance of convenience--Defendants would be harmed more if injunction were granted than plaintiffs would be if it was refused--Public interest largely favouring defendants-- Another important reason in favour of defendants arising from plaintiffs' delay-- Application dismissed--Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 35.