In this case, the B.C. Supreme Court issued an injunction restraining Taseko Mines Limited (Taseko Mines) from continuing its exploration activities at Prosperity Mine, a potential billion-dollar, open-pit gold and copper mine, while the Tsilhqot'in Nation and the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation Government pursued judicial review of the Ministry of Energy and Mines decisions to grant permits allowing Taseko Mines to undertake exploratory work and clear timber. The basis for the judicial review was the First Nations' claim that the Crown had breached its duty to consult. Of significant interest in this case is that in granting the injunction the Court relieved the First Nations of the usual obligation to provide an undertaking as to damages, should the injunction prove unwarranted at trial.1

In considering the availability of an injunction, the Court considered: (i) whether there was a serious question to be tried; and (ii) whether the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, including the question of who would suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of the interlocutory injunction, pending a determination on the merits.

The Court had no difficulty determining that the question of whether the Crown had sufficiently discharged its duty to consult in issuing the permits was a serious question to be tried. Ultimately, the Court found that the balance of convenience favoured the First Nations. Although the Court concluded that the loss of the constitutional right to be consulted does not constitute irreparable harm in every case, it found that without the injunction the First Nations could lose their right to a deep level of consultation and the judicial review proceeding would become moot. Although the Court noted that Taseko Mines' interests may be harmed by the injunction, a delay of a few months and its associated costs weighed less heavily in the context of a billion-dollar project that has taken 20 years to bring to fruition.

The balance of convenience was also relevant in the Court's decision to relieve the First Nations of the requirement to provide an undertaking to abide by any order as to damages. Other relevant factors included the relative economic strength of the parties, the relative harm each was likely to suffer, and the importance of ensuring that matters proceeded on an "appropriate basis" between the parties.

Footnote

1. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice reached a similar decision on January 3, 2012. See Wahgoshig First Nation v. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and Solid Gold Resources Corp., 2011 ONSC 7708.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.