Ruling arises from refusal to renew permit on ecotourism operations in wildlife management area
The Manitoba Court of Appeal has declined to grant interlocutory injunctive relief, which would have required issuing a permit authorizing the operation of two tundra vehicles to view polar bears in an environmentally protected area in Churchill, Manitoba.
In Lazy Bear Lodge Ltd v Manitoba, 2025 MBCA 57, the appellants operated a commercial ecotourism business in Churchill for about three decades. The town and its surroundings fell within the Churchill wildlife management area (the CWMA), designated as such by the Use of Wildlife Lands Regulation, Man Reg 77/99, under Manitoba’s Wildlife Act.
In 2013, the Manitoba government adopted a management plan seeking to improve understanding of wildlife within the CWMA and oversee the impacts of human activity and ecotourism on polar bears and their northern habitats. The management plan authorized a maximum of 18 off-road tundra vehicles to operate within the CWMA.
Polar bears were a protected species under division 6 of schedule A of the Wildlife Act and a threatened species under the Threatened, Endangered, and Extirpated Species Regulation, Man Reg 25/98, under Manitoba’s Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act.
In 2020, the minister of natural resources and indigenous futures issued to the appellants for the first time a wildlife management area use permit under the Wildlife Act’s provisions and s. 46(1) of the Use of Wildlife Lands Regulation.
The permit allowed the appellants to operate two tundra vehicles for its tours and transportation for commercial tourism purposes within the CWMA’s second zone. The permit effectively raised the maximum number of off-road tundra vehicles operating in the CWMA to 20.
From 2021–25, the appellants annually applied for a permit, which expired every year. They later learned, without prior notice, that they would not be receiving a permit for the 2025–26 ecotourism season.
A letter by the wildlife branch director, acting under the minister’s direction, said the decision refusing to renew the permit aimed to align with Manitoba’s conservation priorities for polar bears, promote the protection of the sensitive tundra ecosystem, and return to the maximum of 18 vehicles under the management plan.
Before the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench, the appellants applied for judicial review and later moved for urgent interlocutory injunctive relief until the final determination of their judicial review application.
In April, a motion judge dismissed the appellants’ motion. On appeal, the appellants named the provincial government, the minister, and the director as respondents.
Injunctive relief denied
The Court of Appeal of Manitoba dismissed the appeal. The appeal court ruled that the motion judge’s decision was not so clearly wrong that it would be unjust. In reaching its conclusion, the appeal court addressed the tripartite test for interlocutory injunctions, found in RJR — MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311.
First, the respondents conceded to the judge that the application raised a serious issue for the purpose of the motion. Considering this concession, the appeal court accepted the existence of a serious issue and discussed this factor no further.
Second, the judge said the appellants quantified the financial implications to their business and failed to show irreparable harm incapable of a cure or compensation if they would ultimately prevail in their underlying application. The judge concluded that the impact of Manitoba’s decision on their business was quantifiable and compensable by damages if they succeeded.
The appeal court accepted that the judge misspoke when he stated that the appellants could receive damages if their application succeeded.
The appeal court noted that a judicial review application could not recover damages on an administrative decision. According to the appeal court, without bad faith, success would entail the court quashing the decision being reviewed and remanding the matter to the government minister for reconsideration.
However, the appeal court held that the judge’s error was immaterial to its decision and his finding – that the appellants’ potential harm could be quantifiable as damages – deserved a high degree of deference. Thus, the appeal court concluded that the harm was reparable.
Third, the appeal court decided that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the requested relief.
The appeal court noted that the appellants were seeking a mandatory injunction that would require the minister to act by issuing a new permit upon the expiry of an earlier permit, rather than an injunction prohibiting the minister from acting.
The appeal court explained that the relief the appellants wanted was something the minister had no obligation to grant under the legislative scheme.
The appeal court noted that courts have found no automatic right to the renewal of permits or licences in prior rulings involving ministerial discretion, and administrative law principles supported the lack of an obligation to renew a licence.
The appeal court emphasized that the public interest also supported refusing the requested relief. The appeal court stressed that the Wildlife Act and the Use of Wildlife Lands Regulation primarily sought to manage, conserve, and enhance Manitoba’s wildlife resources in the public interest, especially for situations involving protected or threatened species like polar bears.
The appeal court noted that the director declined to renew the permit in the public interest. As the letter stated, the decision aimed to align with the province’s conservation priorities for polar bears and the tundra ecosystem’s protection.
Lastly, the appeal court noted that it was not ruling on the merits of the appellants’ underlying judicial review application.
