T-4562-76
Raymond Viateur Beauvais (Applicant)
v.
Andrew Delisle, Annie White, Frank Melvin
Jacobs, June Delisle and the Minister of Indian
and Northern Affairs (Respondents)
Trial Division, Dubé J.—Montreal, November 22;
Ottawa, November 23, 1976.
Jurisdiction—Application for injunction under Federal
Court Act, s. 18—Whether Court has jurisdiction—Whether
need for injunction proved—Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, s.
93—Federal Court Act, s. 18.
APPLICATION.
COUNSEL:
Guy C. Gervais for applicant.
H. Salmon for respondents Andrew Delisle,
Annie White, Frank Melvin Jacobs and June
Delisle.
Gaspard Côté for respondent Minister of
Indian and Northern Affairs.
SOLICITORS:
Guy C. Gervais, Montreal, for applicant.
Cerini, Jamieson, Salmon, Findlay, Watson,
Squaid & Harris, Montreal, for respondents
Andrew Delisle, Annie White, Frank Melvin
Jacobs and June Delisle.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent Minister of Indian and Northern
Affairs.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for order rendered by
DUBS J.: Applicant has not shown that the Trial
Division has jurisdiction to issue an injunction
against the members of an Indian band council, as
section 18 of the Federal Court Act provides for
this extraordinary remedy to be issued against
"any federal board, commission or other tribunal"
and not against individuals. Even if it had this
jurisdiction this Court would not allow the applica
tion, for the following reasons:
(1) applicant did not establish or even allege in
his affidavit or application that his losses would be
irreparable if the injunction were not granted;
(2) applicant did not conclusively establish that
he had fulfilled all the conditions allowing him to
remove minerals from the reserve, contrary to
section 93 of the Indian Act';
(3) applicant did not show that respondents
themselves intimidated him, his employees or his
customers;
(4) applicant did not establish that the Federal
Court had jurisdiction to enjoin the Caughnawaga
police, who in this case were the Quebec Police
Force, and he did not serve a notice of application
on the aforementioned police officers, whose
names do not appear on the title;
(5) applicant did not show that the aforemen
tioned police officers were acting unlawfully when
they distributed to truck drivers, who were custom
ers of applicant, "promises to appear", under sec
tion 93 of the Indian Act.
ORDER
For these reasons the application is dismissed
with costs.
' R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.