Court File and Parties
CITATION: Sierra Club Canada v. Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010 ONSC 5052
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 412/10
DATE: 20100914
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HARVISON YOUNG J.
BETWEEN:
SIERRA CLUB CANADA
Applicant/Moving Party
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES and THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
Respondents/Responding Parties
Paula Boutis and Karen Dawson, for the Applicant/Moving Party
Lise Favreau, for the Respondents/ Responding Parties
HEARD at Toronto: September 14, 2010
Oral Reasons for Judgment
HARVISON YOUNG J.
[1] Having reviewed the materials filed and heard counsel’s submissions, I am of the view that the motion for an interim injunction to prohibit continuing demolition of houses pending the disposition of the interlocutory injunction to be heard on September 16, 2010, should be dismissed.
[2] First, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that irreparable harm will result from the demolition of the approximately eight houses to be demolished in the next few days. This is true whether the Court takes the view of the meaning of “habitat” propounded by the respondent or the broader view propounded by the applicant. It is especially true in any event, in light of the pre-screening process undertaken with respect to the properties to be demolished and the evidence that no snakes have been found to-date.
[3] Second, I am not satisfied that the balance of convenience consideration favours the applicant. While it is true that the actual demolition of the houses only began this week, it is also true that the tender for demolition was issued on July 16, 2010 and that since August 4, 2010, the MTO website has indicated that the demolition of these properties would be proceeding.
[4] The applicant was aware of the respondents’ plans when it began its application on August 18 and when the date of September 16, 2010 was set for the hearing of the injunction application. Given the previously announced intentions of the Minister and the fact that it had refused to agree not to commence demolition pending the disposition of the injunction application, the commencement of the demolition this week cannot have come as a surprise. Moreover, the applicant could have sought an interim injunction at an earlier date.
[5] Accordingly, I conclude that the balance of convenience pending the disposition of the interlocutory motion favours the respondent in the circumstances.
[6] Costs reserved.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 14, 2010
Date of Release: September 15, 2010
CITATION: Sierra Club Canada v. Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010 ONSC 5052
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 412/10
DATE: 20100914
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HARVISON-YOUNG J.
BETWEEN:
SIERRA CLUB CANADA
Applicant/Moving Party
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES and THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
Respondents/Responding Parties
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 14, 2010
Date of Release: September 15, 2010