Bacon et al. v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. et al., (1999) 180 Sask.R. 20 (CA)

• Judge: Vancise, Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: Thursday November 19, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 180 Sask.R. 20 (CA)

Bacon v. SCIC (1999), 180 Sask.R. 20 (CA);

    205 W.A.C. 20

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.029

Wayne Bacon, Gary Svenkeson et al. (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation and the Government of Saskatchewan (respondents/defendants)

(No. 2815)

Indexed As: Bacon et al. v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A.

May 14, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff farmers entered into a rev­enue insurance program (contract) with the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. (SCIC), a Crown corporation. The Saskatchewan Government passed legislation which made unilateral changes to the contract and also removed the right of civil action with respect to the changes. The plaintiffs sued the Gov­ernment and SCIC for breach of contract.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 157 Sask.R. 199, dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 114

Definitions - Rule of law - [See first Con­stitutional Law - Topic 482].

Constitutional Law - Topic 482

Powers of parliament and the legislatures -Limitations on powers of parliament - Rule of law - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "[t]he protection we treasure as a democratic country with the rule of law as 'a fundamental postulate' of our constitution is twofold. Protection is provided by our courts against arbitrary and unlawful actions by officials while protection against arbitrary legislation is provided by the democratic process of calling our legislators into regular periods of accountability through the ballot box. This concept of the rule of law is not in any way restricted by the Supreme Court's statement [in Reference re Secession of Quebec] that nobody including govern­ments is beyond the law. That statement is a reference to the law as it exists from time to time and does not create a restric­tion on Parliament's right to make laws, but is only a recognition that when they are made they are then applicable to all, including governments." - See paragraph 30.

Constitutional Law - Topic 482

Powers of parliament and the legislatures -Limitations on powers of parliament - Rule of law - A trial judge held that the rule of law was not restricted to the exec­utive or administrative branches of gov­ernment, but applied to the legislative branch as well - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "[t]his approach taken by the trial judge appears to me to lose sight of the fact the public's protection from the arbi-trary use of power by offi­cials is provided by the courts in situations such as was dealt with in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, but the public's protection from the arbitrary use of power by the elected legislators is the ballot box. We place our confidence in the courts to the extent they will recognize and deal with arbitrary actions of officials not supported by law but we place our confidence in the demo­cratic process of elections to deal with the arbitrary use of legislative powers." - See paragraph 36.

Constitutional Law - Topic 482

Powers of parliament and the legislatures -Limitations on powers of parliament - Rule of law - The plaintiff farmers entered into a revenue insurance program (con­tract) with the Saskatchewan Crop Insur­ance Corp. (SCIC) - The Saskatchewan Govern­ment passed legislation which made unilat­eral changes to the contract and also extin­guished any right of action arising out of the changes - The plaintiffs sued the Gov­ernment and SCIC for breach of con­tract - They submitted that the legislation was unconstitutional because it was arbit­rary and therefore contrary to the rule of law - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that there was no basis to challenge the validity of the legislation used to impose the new contract and extinguish the right to challenge its application through reli­ance upon the usual common law rem­edies.

Crown - Topic 1248

Contracts with Crown - Breach by the Crown - Defences - Statutory immunity - [See third Constitutional Law - Topic 482].

Cases Noticed:

Florence Mining Co. v. Cobalt Lake Min­ing Co. (1909), 18 O.L.R. 275 (C.A.), affd. (1910), 48 O.L.R. 474 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525; 127 N.R. 161; 1 B.C.A.C. 241; 1 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 14].

Reference Re Canada Assistance Plan - see Reference Re Constitutional Question Act (B.C.).

Amax Potash Ltd. et al. v. Saskatchewan, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 576; 11 N.R. 222, refd to. [para. 14].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis (1959), 16 D.L.R.(2d) 689 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 19].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, consd. [para. 23].

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 424; 75 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 29].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Co., [1950] A.C. 87 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Agricultural Safety Net Act, S.S. 1990-91, c. A-14.2, sect. 13.2 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Ron Mills, Q.C., for the appellants;

Don McKillop, Q.C., and T. Irvine, for the Government of Saskatchewan;

J.P. Ellson, for the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Board.

This appeal was heard on November 19, 1998, by Vancise, Wakeling and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Wakeling, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal on May 14, 1999.