New Brunswick Broilers Growers Marketing Board v. Sussex Poultry Ltd., (1970) 2 N.B.R.(2d) 873 (CA)

• Judge: Bridges, C.J.N.B., Limerick and Hughes, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: November 16, 1966
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1970), 2 N.B.R.(2d) 873 (CA)

Broilers Growers v. Sussex Poultry (1970), 2 N.B.R.(2d) 873 (CA);

    2 R.N.-B.(2e) 873

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

The New Brunswick Broilers Growers Marketing Board v. Sussex Poultry Limited

Indexed As: New Brunswick Broilers Growers Marketing Board v. Sussex Poultry Ltd.

Répertorié: New Brunswick Broilers Growers Marketing Board v. Sussex Poultry Ltd.

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Bridges, C.J.N.B., Limerick and Hughes, JJ.A.

June 30, 1970.

Summary:

Résumé:

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal declared invalid an order of the Natural Products Control Board which order was made pursuant to Section 16 of The New Brunswick Broiler Growers Marketing Plan Regulations. The order levied a service charge on broiler processors. The Board was authorized by Section 16 of the Regulations to collect service charges "subject to the approval ... of the registered producers in general meeting".

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the failure to acquire such approval rendered the order of the Natural Products Control Board invalid.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3904

Marketing of agricultural products - Enforcement of plan - Assessment of charges - Trade and commerce - Statutes - Agricultural marketing plan - Natural Products Control Act - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed action by Natural Products Control Board against a broiler processor for collection of service charges - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal declared invalid an order of the Natural Products Control Board levying service charges because the charges were not approved by a meeting of registered producers as required by statutory regulation.

Statutes - Topic 1554

Interpretation - Construction where meaning is not plain - Implied meaning - Stating one thing implies exclusion of another (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - Regulations - Interpretation - Condition precedent attached to a specific power cannot be abrogated by a general power - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal applied maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another).

Cases Noticed:

Re The Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 131 as amended (1957), 7 D.L.R.(2d) 257 (S.C.C.), folld.

Carnation Co. Ltd. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board et al. (1968), 67 D.L.R.(2d) 1 (S.C.C.), folld.

Davis v. Clifton, 8 U.C.C.P. 236, folld.

Aldrick v. Attorney-General, [1968] P. 281, folld.

Statutes Noticed:

Natural Products Control Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 156.

New Brunswick Broiler Growers Marketing Plan Regulations, November 16, 1966, S.O.R. 66-37, O.C. 66-940.

Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 114, sect. 18.

Counsel:

C. Allison Mills, for plaintiff;

D.M. Gillis, Q.C., with A.G.W. Gilbert, for defendant.

Reference from the Westmorland County Court with respect to the validity of an order of a statutory board.

The judgment of the court was delivered by LIMERICK, J.A.