Cardinal v. Prince

Cardinal v. Prince
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2008-10-31
Neutral citation
2008 FCA 339
File numbers
A-503-08
Decision Content
Date: 20081031
Docket: A-503-08
Citation: 2008 FCA 339
Present: NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
JARET CARDINAL, RONALD WILLIER, RUSSELL WILLIER
and SUCKER CREEK FIRST NATION #150A
Appellants
and
GEORGE PRINCE AND PAULETTE CAMPIOU
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 31, 2008.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.A.
Date: 20081031
Docket: A-503-08
Citation: 2008 FCA 339
Present: NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
JARET CARDINAL, RONALD WILLIER, RUSSELL WILLIER
and SUCKER CREEK FIRST NATION #150A
Appellants
and
GEORGE PRINCE AND PAULETTE CAMPIOU
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.A.
[1] By resolutions dated August 20, 2008, the Sucker Creek First Nation (the “First Nation”) Band Council removed the respondents, councillors of the First Nation, from office.
[2] As a result of their removal, the respondents commenced a judicial review application before the Federal Court and sought an interlocutory injunction enjoining the First Nation from holding a by-election to replace them as councillors and from interfering with the exercise of their duties as councillors, pending the determination of their judicial review application.
[3] On September 30, 2008, Hansen J. granted the respondents’ motion and ordered that they be reinstated as councillors with pay, including back-pay, and with access to their offices. The Judge also enjoined the First Nation from interfering with the respondents’ exercise of their duties as councillors, pending the determination of their judicial review application.
[4] On October 1, 2008, the appellants filed a Notice of Appeal seeking an Order setting aside the Federal Court’s decision and removing the respondents from office.
[5] On October 8, 2008, the appellants filed the motion now before me, pursuant to which they seek an Order staying Hansen J.’s decision until the determination of their appeal.
[6] The appellants concede that in determining whether or not to grant a stay, this Court must apply the test set out in RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. Thus, in order to succeed, the appellants must convince me that their appeal raises a serious issue, that irreparable harm will occur if the Order sought is not granted and, finally, that the balance of convenience is in their favour.
[7] Although the appellants have satisfied me that their appeal raises a serious issue, they have failed to persuade me that a refusal to grant a stay of the Order made by the learned Judge would cause them irreparable harm.
[8] For these reasons, the motion will be dismissed with costs.
“M. Nadon”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-503-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: JARET CARDINAL et al v. GEORGE PRINCE et al
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: NADON J.A.
DATED: 20081031
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Priscilla Kennedy
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Thomas R. Owen
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Davis LLP
Edmondon, AB
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Owen Law
Edmonton, AB
FOR THE RESPONDENTS