Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appeal concerned refusal of interlocutory relief to compel issuance of a wildlife permit for tundra vehicle use in a protected area.

• Motion judge concluded alleged business losses were quantifiable and therefore did not amount to irreparable harm.

• The injunction sought was mandatory in nature, requiring a higher legal threshold than a prohibitive order.

• Minister’s discretion under section 46(1) of the Regulation was central; there is no entitlement to permit renewal.

• Claim of legitimate expectations was dismissed as it cannot create substantive rights under administrative law.

• Public interest in conservation and adherence to vehicle limits under the CWMA Management Plan outweighed commercial harm to appellant.

Background and factual history

Lazy Bear Lodge Ltd., operating as Lazy Bear Expeditions and represented by Walter Daudrich, has run a commercial ecotourism business in Churchill, Manitoba for approximately thirty years. The area falls within the Churchill Wildlife Management Area (CWMA), governed by the Use of Wildlife Lands Regulation, Man Reg 77/99 under The Wildlife Act, CCSM c W130, which prohibits commercial activities and vehicle operations without a permit. Polar bears are classified both as a protected species under the Act and a threatened species under The Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, CCSM c E111.

Between 2020 and 2024, the Minister of Natural Resources and Indigenous Futures issued annual permits under section 46(1) of the Regulation, allowing Lazy Bear to operate two tundra vehicles within the CWMA. The most recent permit, issued June 5, 2024, expired on March 31, 2025. On February 27, 2025, the Director of the Wildlife Branch wrote to Lazy Bear indicating they would not be issued a permit for the 2025/2026 season. The letter cited alignment with Manitoba’s conservation priorities, data from a 2021 Government of Nunavut aerial survey, and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s findings, concluding the number of authorized tundra vehicles would revert to 18 in accordance with the 2013 CWMA Management Plan.

Lazy Bear received no prior notice or consultation regarding the refusal and subsequently filed an application for judicial review and sought urgent interlocutory injunctive relief before the Court of King’s Bench. The motion for relief was dismissed on April 17, 2025. Lazy Bear appealed this decision to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

Policy terms and regulatory framework

The legal and policy framework includes:

• Section 7 and 11 of the Regulation: presumptively prohibit commercial activity and vehicle operation in the CWMA.

• Section 46(1): grants ministerial discretion to authorize otherwise prohibited activity via permit.

• CWMA Management Plan (2013): restricts tundra vehicle use to 18 within the CWMA to protect polar bears and the tundra ecosystem.

Permits issued to Lazy Bear from 2020 to 2024 had the effect of temporarily increasing the limit to 20 vehicles. However, the letter of February 27, 2025 clarified that no new permit would be granted for the following season, and the province would adhere to the 18-vehicle cap outlined in the management plan.

Court’s reasoning and outcome

The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s refusal to grant interlocutory relief. The appeal was dismissed on May 15, 2025, with written reasons issued on June 9, 2025.

The Court found that the injunction requested was mandatory, as it would compel the minister to issue a permit—something the legislative scheme does not require. This classification raised the threshold for relief to a “strong prima facie case,” although the Court noted this standard had not been argued before the motion judge.

On the issue of irreparable harm, Lazy Bear submitted that denial of a permit would cause loss of revenue from booked tours, reputational harm, and loss of market share. The Court acknowledged these effects but upheld the motion judge’s finding that the harm was quantifiable and thus not irreparable. Although the motion judge mistakenly suggested damages could be awarded through judicial review, the appellate court found this error immaterial to the outcome.

Regarding the balance of convenience, the Court determined that the public interest in conservation outweighed the commercial interests of Lazy Bear. The permit system was discretionary, and the doctrine of legitimate expectations did not entitle the appellant to substantive rights or automatic renewal. Furthermore, courts have repeatedly held that there is no inherent right to the renewal of government-issued licences or permits.

In conclusion, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found no error warranting appellate intervention and affirmed the motion judge’s decision. Costs were awarded in the cause. No amount was specified.