COURT OF APPEAL SUD onal han om oe OEMS Er 1240003 pm. 2015-01~18 18 January 14, 2015 Mr, Harley I, Schachter and Ms, Kaitlyn &. Lewis (via facsimile - 204-942-3362) Duboff Edwards Haight & Schachter Law Corporation Barristers and Solicitors 1900 - 155 Carkton Street Winnipeg, MB. R3C 3H8 Mr. Douglas A. Bedford (via facsimile - 204-360-6147) Manitoba Hydro 360 Portage Avenue P.O. Box B15, Station Main Winnipeg, MB, R3C 0G8 Dear Counsel: RE: Sapotaweyak Cree Ni v. The Province of Manitoba et al. Q.B. File No. CI 14-01-92744. VIA FACSIMILE- ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW VIA MAIL Mr. Gordon &, Hannon and Mr. Jim R. Koch (via facsimile - 204-948-2244) Manitoba Justice Civil Legal Services 730 - 405 Broadway Winnipeg, MB. R3C 3L6 Ms. Helga D. Van Iderstine (via facsimile ~ 204-957-4268) Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson LLP Barristers and Solicitors 30" Floor, 360 Main Street Winnipeg, MB. R3C 4G1 With respect to the above, I enclose herewith an endorsement sheet setting out my decision in this matter. As indicated, written reasons will follow at a later date. Imave Encl,ousae 2267 ‘COUKTOF APPEAL JUD 12014 pm, 2015-01-18 28 FILE NO. CI 14-01-92744 ‘THE QUEEN'S BENCH (WINNIPEG CENTRE) BETWEEN; SAPOTAWEYAK CREE NATION, and CHIEF NELSON GENAILLE on behalf of SAPOTAWEYAK CREE NATION, Praintifts, -and - ‘THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA and MANITOBA HYDRO, Defendants. EN EET SITTING DATE(S) __January 13, 2015 JUDGE/MASTER ___BRYK = eee COUNSEL __H. Schachter and K. Lewis Plaintiffs O Petitioner [i Applicant Present C defendant Respondent —_l Present G. Hannon and J. Koch Defendant Gov. of Manitoba © Present 2, Bedford and H. Van Iderstine 1 Defendant Manitoba Hydro © Present ENDORSEMENT: [1] This matter appeared before me by way of plaintiffs’ notice of motion wherein it was seeking the following relief: (a) (b) ‘An order for an interlocutory injunction requiring the defendants to stop or not commence clearing and cutting within the geographic area known as N4 (intended for use by the Bipole IIE transmission tine project) until the court is satisfied that adequate consultation with, and accommodation of the plaintiff SCN has taken place and until the court is satisfied that Manitoba Hydro complies with the specifications, limits, terms, or conditions set out in the Licence granted under the Environment Act, Jn the alternative, and if the defendants are not ready to proceed to argue the case for an interlocutory Injunction, an order for an interim shorter term injunction to remain in effect until the motion for an interlocutory injunction can be heard or to such other time: as may be just and convenient, requiring the defendants to stop or not commence clearing and cutting areas within the geographic area known as N4 (intended for use by the Bipole IIT transmission line project) until the court Is satisfied that adequatepotas 507 PAL JUD 12:66:29 m. 2015-01-18, 38 2 consultation with, and accommodation of the plaintiff SCN has taken place and until the court is satisfied that Manitoba Hydro complies with the specifications, limits, terms, or conditions set out in the Licence granted under the Environment Act; (©) An interlocutory, or alternatively an interim order requiring that the defendants consult with SCN, and to seek to accommodate SCN’s claims, interests and ambitions in respect of the land compromising the Bipole III corridor and lands in the vicinity thereof prior to any cutting or clearing within the N4 geographic area commencing or continuing, and requiring the defendants to fund those consultations in an amount to be agreed, but failing agreement, in an amount determined by this court; and (a) Costs of this motion. [2] _ Given the exigencies surrounding this mater, I undertook to render @ decision quickly with written reasons to follow at a later date. [3] _ I find that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy me with respect to both defendants based on the test for granting an interlocutory injunction enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in RIR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 5.C.R. 311. Accordingly the application for interlocutory injunctions against both defendants is hereby dismissed. [4] Written reasons for this decision wall follow at a later date. Following the issuance of those written reasons, If the parties wish to address the issue of costs, arrangements cah, be rpade fora hearing date on that issue. DATE _January 14, 2015 Copies of this Endorsement Sheet have been sent to counsel on the 14th-day'of January, 2015.