Alberta Turkey Producers v. Leth et al., (2006) 407 A.R. 201 (QB)

• Judge: Greckol, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 10, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 407 A.R. 201 (QB);2006 ABQB 813

Alta. Turkey Producers v. Leth (2006), 407 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. NO.063

In The Matter Of The Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-4 and the Regulations passed thereunder

Alberta Turkey Producers (applicant) v. Arnold Leth (respondent) and Attorney General of Alberta (0403 24082; 2006 ABQB 813)

Indexed As: Alberta Turkey Producers v. Leth et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Greckol, J.

November 10, 2006.

Summary:

An Alberta farmer (Leth) produced turkeys primarily for export. Turkey marketing in Alberta was regulated by an interlocking federal-provincial scheme. The Alberta Turkey Producers (ATP) was a provincial marketing board that regulated marketing under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act (MAPA). The Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency (CTMA) was responsible for the federal aspect of the marketing scheme. ATP allotted the combined provincial and federal quotas to producers operating within the province. For several years, CTMA did not issue federal quotas. ATP continued assigning quotas and administering the quota system. ATP, relying on ss. 25(4)(b) and 25(4)(c) of the Turkey Marketing Regulation, maintained that Leth could produce only to his provincial quota level, with the result that he was prevented from producing for export beyond that quota. Leth argued that this constituted regulation of his export capacity and was tantamount to ATP assuming control over exports, which ATP was not empowered to do under provincial legislation. Leth asserted that the MAPA and the Regulation, to the extent that they allowed ATP to regulate exports, were unconstitutional.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the restrictive provisions of ss. 25(4)(b) and 25(4)(c) did not apply absent federal approval of an export quota for administration by ATP. However, there was no reason why the condition set out in s. 25(4)(a) should not apply. The result was that turkey could be produced for export beyond the base quota on submission of a detailed plan with respect to quantity. Monitoring by ATP would continue to ensure that intra provincial production and marketing by Leth was compliant with the quota issued by ATP.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5671

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Regulation of trade and commerce - Extra-provincial trade - An Alberta farmer (Leth) produced turkeys primarily for export - Turkey marketing in Alberta was regulated by an interlocking federal-provincial scheme - The Alberta Turkey Producers (ATP) was a provincial marketing board that regulated marketing under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act - The Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency (CTMA) was responsible for the federal aspect of the marketing scheme - ATP allotted the combined provincial and federal quotas to producers operating within the province - For several years, CTMA did not issue federal quotas - ATP continued assigning quotas and administering the quota system - ATP, relying on ss. 25(4)(b) and 25(4)(c) of the Turkey Marketing Regulation, maintained that Leth could produce only to his provincial quota level, with the result that he was prevented from producing for export beyond that quota - Leth argued that this constituted regulation of his export capacity and was tantamount to ATP assuming control over exports, which ATP was not empowered to do under provincial legislation - Leth asserted that the Act and the Regulation, to the extent that they allowed ATP to regulate exports, were unconstitutional - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the restrictive provisions of ss. 25(4)(b) and 25(4)(c) did not apply absent federal approval of an export quota for administration by ATP - However, there was no reason why the condition set out in s. 25(4)(a) should not apply - The result was that turkey could be produced for export beyond the base quota on submission of a detailed plan with respect to quantity - Monitoring by ATP would continue to ensure that intraprovincial production and marketing by Leth was compliant with the quota issued by ATP- See paragraphs 112 to 143.

Constitutional Law - Topic 7300.4

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Agricultural marketing - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 5671 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 3541

Marketing of agricultural products - Production and import quotas - General - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 5671 ].

Cases Noticed:

Leth Farms Ltd. et al. v. Alberta Turkey Growers Marketing Board et al., [2000] 3 W.W.R. 149; 255 A.R. 50; 220 W.A.C. 50 (C.A.), consd. [para. 70].

Kitkatla Indian Band et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146; 286 N.R. 131; 165 B.C.A.C. 1; 270 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 98].

Canadian National Transportation Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206; 49 N.R. 241; 49 A.R. 39, refd to. [para. 98].

City National Leasing Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 98].

Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 494; 252 N.R. 290; 134 B.C.A.C. 207; 219 W.A.C. 207, refd to. [para. 99].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970, Re, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 104].

Statutes Noticed:

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act Regulations (Alta.), Turkey Marketing Regulation, Reg. 397/88, sect. 25 [para. 72].

Turkey Marketing Regulation - see Marketing of Agricultural Products Act Regulations (Alta.).

Counsel:

Joe Miller (Weir Bowen), for the plaintiff;

Christopher Harvey, Q.C. (MacKenzie Fujisawa LLP), for the defendant.

This matter was heard on May 17-19 and September 14 and 20, 2006, by Greckol, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on November 10, 2006.