Poplar River First Nation could not obtain a temporary injunction in Manitoba’s Court of King’s Bench to stop the federal fish-marketing corporation’s divestiture or prevent disposal of a vessel it relied on, the court ruled in reasons released April 8, 2026.

In Poplar River First Nation v. His Majesty the King in the Right of Canada et al., Justice Inness dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling did not decide whether Canada had breached its duties to the First Nation, and it did not dismiss the underlying claim for damages and declaratory relief. A footnote expressly limited the decision to interim and interlocutory relief, rather than the claim for a permanent injunction against Canada.

The dispute concerned the MV Poplar River, owned at the time described in the reasons by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The Ojibway community on Lake Winnipeg’s east shore relied on the vessel during the open-water season to move commercially harvested fish and bring in essential goods and equipment.

The First Nation argued that uncertainty about future vessel access threatened its economic security. It pointed to the severe disruption caused when an explosion put the vessel out of operation in 2022. Its requested orders included stopping the divestiture until consultation and accommodation obligations were fulfilled, and preventing a vessel transfer or sale without its consent.

A damages action did not supply injunction jurisdiction

Canada accepted that the Manitoba court could hear the damages claim and grant declaratory relief at its final determination. It argued, however, that statutory and common-law Crown immunity barred the temporary injunction sought on this motion.

Inness distinguished a compensation action from judicial review seeking to restrain a government decision. The Supreme Court’s TeleZone ruling allowed certain damages actions to proceed without first obtaining judicial review, but did not itself authorize this provincial court to grant the interim relief Poplar River sought. Section 22 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and Crown-immunity principles applied.

The judge recognized that exceptions to the usual restriction exist, including in some constitutional or property-preservation cases. None applied here. The First Nation’s alternative argument that an order was needed to preserve the status quo also failed on the record before the court.

Inness found that the requested relief involved both stopping action and compelling Canada to take steps to restore the status quo. A simple prohibition on divestiture would not itself make the vessel available to the First Nation. The court also lacked enough evidence to identify the situation it was being asked to preserve: the First Nation could not tell it where the vessel was or who possessed it. Inness expressed sympathy for the community’s economic concerns but found them insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The corporation remained a party

The injunction request against the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation also failed. The judge found no evidence that the corporation had an independent or delegated duty to consult, and rejected the attempt to obtain relief against it as ancillary to an injunction against Canada that was itself unavailable.

That did not end the corporation’s involvement in the lawsuit. It asked for a stay because no cause of action had been pleaded against it, but had not filed a motion seeking a stay or to strike the claim. Inness found that granting a stay in this setting would unfairly prejudice the First Nation; whether the corporation should remain a defendant required separate consideration.

The judge encouraged the parties to bear their own costs, given the important and complex issues raised. If they disagreed, an appointment for a costs hearing had to be made within 30 days of the decision; otherwise, the judge declined costs to any party.

Source: Poplar River First Nation v. His Majesty the King in the Right of Canada et al., 2026 MBKB 43.