Law360 Canada ( August 6, 2025, 1:59 PM EDT) -- Appeal by the Lazy Bear of an order of a Court of King’s Bench motion judge (the motion judge) dismissing Lazy Bear’s motion for urgent interlocutory relief. The interlocutory injunctive relief sought by Lazy Bear, if granted, would have required the Government of Manitoba (the government), the Minister of Natural Resources and Indigenous Futures (the minister), and the Director of the Wildlife Branch (the director) (collectively, the respondents) to issue a permit to Lazy Bear authorizing the operation of two tundra vehicles for the purpose of viewing polar bears in an environmentally protected area located in Churchill, Man. In 2020, for the first time, the minister issued Lazy Bear a Wildlife Management Area Use Permit (the permit) to operate two tundra vehicles for providing tours for the purposes connected with commercial tourism. The director advised Lazy Bear that Manitoba was rescinding the permit for the forthcoming 2025 season. As a result of the letter, Lazy Bear applied for judicial review before the Court of King’s Bench and unsuccessfully moved for interlocutory injunctive relief against the respondents pending the final determination of Lazy Bear’s application for judicial review. Lazy Bear argued that the motion judge failed to properly apply the tripartite test for granting interlocutory injunctions and the motion judge misdirected himself as to the evidence and as to the law regarding his findings on irreparable harm and the balance of convenience. Lazy Bear argued that the balance of convenience was in their favour as there was no doubt that they would suffer irreparable harm and significant monetary damages if they did not immediately receive a permit for the 2025/2026 season....