'We're just worried about the land'

[tango]

Go have more vodka Oleg--damn drunkin caucasian guy :-)

[tango]

As far as I can tell the judge is in the dilemma that the by-law which triggered the injunction was illegal and by principle it renders the injunction invalid. However, there is a limited cause for Brantford to suffer some harm if protests continue, as is there is also harm that Six Nations could suffer through Brantford's refusal to consult. The balance between the two makes it necessary for the court to examine any possibility before rendering a verdict one way or the other. The only way to find that out would be for all parties, including the Province to enter into discussion over the merit of the claims and to come up with a process where development might continue while full consultation is taking place. This was presented as an option to the Court by the Amicus Cureai.

However, on a pure legal basis I think the court is in trouble since they could not issue an injunction even if they wanted to, given that it has been handed down by the SCoC that no injunction is possible until the court is satisfied that full consultation has taken place. To me that leaves the court with only one option - denial of the injunction - leaving the need for protest induced consultation to Six Nations, Brantford and the Province, independent of the Court's supervision. I think any other decision may trigger an appeal to a higher court.

The Amicus emphasized that the injunction could, should be dismissed.

I expect that would be appealed by the City.

All of the alternatives involve consultation for accommodation of Six Nations rights on the land. It's the question of the injunction/permit freeze that has the Judge stumped.

There was an impasse in court over development, specifically permits, should continue, Six Nations objecting. The Judge doesn't want to 'freeze' permits, but as you pointed out the bureaucrats may have no choice, due to the constitutional issue. If they go ahead anyway and the developments are predictably stopped, as the other developments already are, they can be sued by the developers with the permits, because they had knowledge of the legal obstacle.

Just like Kingspan has a good case because Brantford had knowledge of Six Nations objections prior to the closing date.

Brantford is pushing it to the wall. The wall isn't moving.

Edited March 17, 2009 by tango

[tango]

Looks like the injunction is going down. One sign of this is that Liberal MPPs usually hide in the bush, and never speak on one side of an issue or another until they see a winner.

I haven't heard any Liberal Provincial Criticism of the injunction in Brantford, yet now the Liberals are sending a message to the city that the did the wrong thing.

Nice to be the last ones to the party. It is not unusual for A Liberal to have meetings with the city agreeing, with what they have done, and then meet various community groups and say whichever is the most popular opinion in the group. Parrots are easy to come by.

I believe that the Federal Liberals were to afraid to even talk about the injunction, or make any statement. The Federal Conservatives were all for it.

Is the judge ruling on the Injunction, or acting as a mediator? And if he is acting as a mediator, why is this only between the Province and the City and Six Nations? Why is their no mention of the Federal government?

Shouldn't the judge rule on whether or not the injuction is valid. Period?

Yes. But the judge is reluctant to dismiss the injunction, as he should.

So he'll likely adjourn the proceedings, with mandatory consultation among all parties.

The feds will likely be involved to present their information on the strength of the claims, though the claims won't be decided at that table.

The provincial/municipal consultation table will focus on whether, where and how development proceeds/not, revenue sharing, and maybe other partnerships.