At the time of the injunction hearing, the most pressing matter was the movement of 22 “trailer” homes [modular homes] over a winter road and their installation. The Court’s Orderrefusing the injunction was conditioned by terms that were to make such movement and installationpossible. Absent such conditions in the Order and compliance therewith, some form of injunctiverelief would have been granted.
Of significance to the injunction hearing and to this judicial review is that it was the AFNwho obtained a quote for the modular homes and who had secured the assistance of De BeersCanada Ltd., the mining company operating a mine near the reserve and who are experienced in theinstallation of such housing, as project manager.
On April 5, 2012, and effective April 19, 2012 (five days before the judicial reviewapplication was scheduled to be heard), the Respondent withdrew the TPM and subsequentlybrought a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the judicial review was moot. That Motion was heardon the same day as the judicial review application, dismissed and the judicial review proceeded.
The parties were advised that more fulsome reasons for dismissal of the Respondent’sMotion to Dismiss would be contained in the Reasons issued on the judicial review application. Forthe reasons that follow, the Court dismissed the Respondent’s Motion and concludes that theapplication for judicial review should be allowed.