[2012] 2 F.C.R. D-6
Crown
Practice
Application for injunction against respondent from imposing third-party management or to restrict third-party manager (TPM) in certain ways—Injunctive relief sought in context of judicial review by applicant to quash appointment of TPM—Applicant entering into Comprehensive Funding Agreement (CFA) with respondent for provision of payment of amounts for applicant to carry out various programs, services—Applicant experiencing housing crisis, state of emergency declared—Applicant defaulting on CFA, leading to appointment of TPM—Respondent raising preliminary issue, claiming injunctive relief not available against Crown pursuant to Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-50, s. 22—Act, s. 22 codifying common law principle that injunctions prohibited against Crown—However, s. 22 not applying where proceeding constituting proper Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1 application for judicial review—Respondent’s position based on argument relationship between parties under CFA contractual in nature—Even in contractual type situation, public law remedies may be available where grounds of attack constitutional in nature or based on party lacking required jurisdiction or exceeding authority—Applicant’s grounds of attack including allegations of improper use of authority, taking into account irrelevant factors, acting for improper purpose—Grounds amenable to judicial review—Therefore, Court having jurisdiction under Federal Courts Act, ss. 18.1, 18.2 to issue injunctive relief against respondent in appropriate circumstances—However, at present time, tripartite test for granting of injunction not satisfied—Application dismissed.
Attawapiskat First Nation v. Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) (T‑2037-11, 2012 FC 146, Phelan J., judgment dated February 3, 2012, 18 pp.)