Facts: The dispute centers on a property within the Tsawout First Nation territory, where the plaintiffs, Allan and Earl Claxton, hold a certificate of possession. They sought to evict the defendants, Vanessa and Sheri Claxton, who reside on the property but have no legal title or certificate of possession. Vanessa and Sheri argued they had rights to the property based on historical occupancy and contributions to the property's expenses.

Issue: The core legal issue was whether Vanessa and Sheri Claxton had any legal right or entitlement to continue occupying the property despite not holding a certificate of possession, and whether the injunction requiring them to vacate should be upheld.

Court's Ruling: The court upheld the injunction, ordering Vanessa and Sheri Claxton to vacate the property. The court found that they did not have a legal right to the property under the Indian Act, as they did not hold a certificate of possession and their claims based on historical occupancy and payments did not confer legal rights over the property.

Costs/Damages Awarded: Costs were awarded in the cause, meaning they would be settled at the conclusion of the main litigation. The court emphasized that while the decision might be disappointing to the defendants, it was necessary to uphold the legal rights established by the certificate of possession held by the plaintiffs.