Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

        



Date: 19990804


Docket: T-1066-99

BETWEEN:

     BERNARD JENNISS and

     THE MALECITE FIRST NATION OF VIGER

     Applicants

     - and -


     MARTINE JENNISS, SYLVIA JENNISS, PIERRE TREMBLAY

     RENÉE TREMBLAY AND DANIELLE TECCA

     Respondents

     - and -


     THE MALECITE FIRST NATION OF VIGER BAND COUNCIL

     - and-

     THE HONOURABLE JANE STEWART

     Third Party


     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Delivered from the bench on July 2, 1999, in Québec, Quebec and revised)

BLAIS J.


[1]      This is a motion for an injunction against Ms. Renée Tremblay and Ms. Danielle Tecca, both employees of the "Malecite First Nation of Viger" Indian Band.

[2]      At the hearing held in Québec on July 2, 1999, the Court dismissed the motion for an injunction from the bench and the Judge indicated that the reasons expressed orally would be recorded in writing.

[3]      Several allegations of mismanagement have been lodged against both respondents. A criminal charge was laid against Danielle Tremblay, sister of the respondent Renée Tremblay and also sister of another respondent, Pierre Tremblay. The charge involved payments of cheques co-signed by the respondent Renée Tremblay. An accounting investigation was requested and it is slowly progressing. A police investigation was also instigated and has already resulted in criminal charges.

[4]      The Court was informed that a general assembly of members of the Malecite First Nation of Viger would be held on July 3, 1999 and that the respondents Renée Tremblay and Pierre Tremblay and the applicant Bernard Jenniss were all candidates for the position of Grand Chief; the election for this position was scheduled for Sunday July 4, 1999.



Serious question

[5]      The applicant demonstrated that there was a serious question to determine.

Irreparable harm

[6]      The Court was not presented with convincing evidence that if an injunction was not issued the respondents could cause irreparable harm to the Malecite First Nation of Viger. In fact, the police had already seized the documents available in the offices of the First Nation"s reserve and it appeared that the applicant Bernard Jenniss, Grand Chief, had already ensured that the majority of the useful and available documents were sent to the accountant and the Sûreté du Québec.

[7]      Furthermore, according to the evidence before the Court, both employees, whose status is uncertain to say the least, have not been in the Band Council offices since the police search on June 11, 1999.

Balance of convenience

[8]      As for the balance of convenience, the third element of the test, given that there is no irreparable harm, it is unnecessary to discuss this third point.


[9]      Moreover, I was disappointed to note the absence of representatives of the third party, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who in a letter dated June 29, 1999, seemed to treat this issue lightly and view it as a private matter, although both the interests of the entire Malecite First Nation of Viger and the third party merited special attention.

CONCLUSION

[10]      In conclusion, the motion for an injunction is dismissed with costs in the cause.







                         Pierre Blais

                         Judge


OTTAWA, ONTARIO

AUGUST 4, 1999


Certified true translation



Monica F. Chamberlain

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD


COURT NO.:              T-1066-99


STYLE OF CAUSE:          Bernard Jeniss et al. v.

                     Martine Jeniss et al


PLACE OF HEARING:          Québec, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:          July 2, 1999

    

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      Blais J.

DATED:                  August 4, 1999


APPEARANCES:

Paul-Yvan Martin              for the applicants

Rino St-Pierre                  for the respondents

Sylvie D"Amour              for the third party


SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Martin, Camirand, Pelletier

Montréal, Quebec              for the applicants

Boucher & Boucher

Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec              for the respondents

Dumas & D"Amours

Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec              for the third party

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.