Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Tsawak-Qin Forestry sought to extend an interim injunction protecting its logging operations in and around Tree Farm Licence 44 from ongoing blockade activity.
   
• Evidence before the court detailed escalating tactics over the preceding year, including tree-spiking in August 2026 that destroyed two chainsaws.
   
• Justice Veenstra applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) to assess whether continued injunctive relief was warranted.
   
• William Jones, a named defendant, opposed converting the order into an indefinite interlocutory injunction and argued for a further time-limited extension instead.
   
• Two self-represented respondents, Ever Vuxtafarkash and Marlene Simmons, raised concerns about the injunction's broad geographic scope and its effect on public and recreational access.
   
• The court extended the injunction on an interim basis to January 31, 2028, and declined to award costs to any party.
   

Facts of the case

Tsawak-Qin Forestry Limited Partnership and Tsawak-Qin Forestry Inc. hold rights under Tree Farm Licence 44, along with an associated Road Permit and Cutting Permit, giving them the right to harvest Crown timber in a defined area between Cowichan Lake and Carmanah Walbran Provincial Park. Beginning in August 2025, the plaintiffs' operations were obstructed by an organized blockade campaign, which Tsawak-Qin said used the same social media accounts previously used to organize the Fairy Creek blockades. On September 12, 2025, Justice Francis granted a one-year interim injunction (the "Initial Injunction"), indexed at 2025 BCSC 1880, prohibiting interference with Tsawak-Qin's roads, vehicles, equipment, and harvesting activities within the injunction area, and authorizing police to arrest and detain those who contravened it. RCMP enforcement began on November 25, 2025, resulting in 12 arrests, two of whom were arrested a second time. During the winter suspension of Tsawak-Qin's operations that followed, from December 19, 2025 to March 29, 2026, the company experienced vandalism to its own equipment and, in early January 2026, arson damage to equipment belonging to a contractor working on the neighbouring TFL 46 that was stored within the injunction area. Blockade activity resumed in June 2026, with further vandalism to a road-building contractor's equipment, followed by gate blockades at the Walbran Main Gate in July 2026. On August 18, 2026, two fallers working for Tsawak-Qin's contractor struck tree spikes with their chainsaws; the saws were damaged beyond repair, though neither faller was injured. Tsawak-Qin stated that its lost revenue over the preceding year exceeded $3 million. With the Initial Injunction set to expire on September 12, 2026, Tsawak-Qin applied to have it continued — either as an interlocutory injunction lasting until trial or further order, or as a further time-limited interim order.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application turned on the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General): whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm without the order, and whether the balance of convenience favours granting relief. Tsawak-Qin relied on Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. for the proposition that an interlocutory injunction's duration does not, by itself, convert it into a permanent order, and on the Court of Appeal's reasoning in the Teal Cedar litigation that injunction applications are not the venue for adjudicating forest policy or climate change concerns. Jones's counsel and the self-represented respondents pointed to Ralph's Auto Supply (B.C.) Ltd. v. Ken Ransford Holdings Ltd. regarding a plaintiff's obligations where litigation is not advanced toward trial after an interlocutory injunction is obtained. The costs question was governed by the general rule under Rule 14-1(12) and (13) that costs of an application follow the cause, with Tsawak-Qin invoking Uber Canada Inc. v. Surrey (City) to argue for costs payable forthwith. The court also noted, without ruling on it, that gates on logging roads are governed by permits issued under the Forest and Range Practices Act, an issue raised separately by Jones with the Forest Practices Board.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Veenstra found that nothing in the updated evidence undercut Justice Francis's original conclusions on the RJR-MacDonald test. On the serious question to be tried, the judge accepted that Tsawak-Qin's claims, grounded in its rights under TFL 44, the Road Permit, and the Cutting Permit, remained live. On irreparable harm, the court adopted Justice Francis's five bases — interference with a property interest in the nature of a profit à prendre, risk of permanently losing harvestable volume under the annual allowable cut, safety risks from blocked access to safety vehicles and unwinterized roads, interference with an ongoing business, and the limited prospect of recovering damages from largely anonymous defendants — and found these reinforced by the escalation in tactics, particularly the tree-spiking incident. On the balance of convenience, the judge again relied on the Court of Appeal's Teal Cedar reasoning that the public interest in upholding the rule of law is the dominant consideration in cases of persistent civil disobedience, noting that Jones's counsel did not attempt to argue the blockade conduct was lawful. On the interim-versus-interlocutory question, Justice Veenstra expressed concern about the lack of progress toward trial but concluded this was not, by itself, disqualifying, since no party appeared to want a trial and no Response to Civil Claim had been filed by any defendant. Weighing the breadth of the injunction area, the intrusive nature of its enforcement powers, and the reasonable likelihood the matter would never reach trial, the judge preferred a time-limited renewal tied to the forestry season over an open-ended interlocutory order, reasoning that reviewing the injunction in winter would allow a more considered assessment than doing so during peak work season.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Veenstra continued the injunction but declined to make it interlocutory, instead extending it as an interim order to expire on January 31, 2028. On costs, the judge found that Jones had succeeded on the one substantively argued issue — whether the order should be interlocutory or interim — while Tsawak-Qin had succeeded in obtaining the extension itself, and ordered no costs as between Tsawak-Qin and Jones. The court also declined to order costs against the self-represented respondents, Ever Vuxtafarkash and Marlene Simmons, citing the value of their submissions to the court and concern about deterring public participation in proceedings of this kind. The result was that all parties were left to bear their own costs, with no monetary award, damages, or costs granted to any party.