Wale v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 62

Chief Howard Lawrence Wale (on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Gitanmaax Band), Chief Glenford Williams (on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Gitwangak Band), Chief Arthur Lawrence Wilson (on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Kispiox Band), Chief Daniel Mitchell (on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Moricetown Band), and The Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Tribal Council Association Appellants

v.

The Attorney General of British Columbia Respondent

indexed as: Wale v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

File No.: 20300.

1991: January 21.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and Stevenson JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Injunction -- Interlocutory injunction restraining appellants and members of their bands from fishing in accordance with Tribal Council by-laws -- Fisheries by-laws about to come into effect -- Negotiations for co-management scheme continuing -- Application to continue injunction granted -- Court of Appeal not interfering with injunction.

Indians -- Fisheries -- Negotiations continuing for co-management scheme -- Tribal Council fisheries by-laws about to come into effect -- Ex parte interlocutory injunction restraining appellants and members of their bands from fishing pursuant to by-laws in question -- Application to continue injunction granted -- Court of Appeal not interfering with injunction.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal from a judgment of Proudfoot J. continuing an interlocutory injunction granted by her on an ex parte application. Appeal dismissed.

Stuart Rush and Murray Adams, for the appellants.

Christopher Harvey, Q.C., and Stephen Best, for the respondent.

//Lamer C.J.//

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

Lamer C.J. -- We need not hear from you, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Best. The Court is ready to hand down judgment now.

We find no error in the Court of Appeal's not interfering with the disposition made by the Chambers Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, costs in the cause.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellants: Stuart Rush, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the respondent: Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver.