Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2010) 358 F.T.R. 306 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 358 F.T.R. 306 (FC);2010 FC 104

Cdn. Wheat Bd. v. Can. (A.G.) (2010), 358 F.T.R. 306 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.054

Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, Harold Bell, Paul Beingessner, Art Hadland, Art Macklin, Ken Eshpeter , Lynn Jacobson , Terry Boehm, Lyle Simonson, Stewart Wells, Keith Ryan , Wilf Harder, and Laurence Nicholson (applicants) v. The Attorney General of Canada, The Minister of Agriculture and Agrifood in his capacity as Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board Meyers, Norris, Penny LLP and The Canadian Wheat Board (respondents)

(T-1457-08; 2010 FC 104)

Indexed As: Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Federal Court

Russell, J.

January 29, 2010.

Summary:

The applicants applied for judicial review of certain directions of the Minister of Agriculture and Agrifood to the Canadian Wheat Board changing the way the voters list was compiled for the election of directors to the Board.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3347

Judicial review - General - Practice - Parties - Standing - The applicants applied for judicial review of certain directions of the Minister of Agriculture and Agrifood to the Canadian Wheat Board changing the way the voters list was compiled for the election of directors to the Board - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The applicants lacked standing to bring the application - There was no evidence that the applicants had been directly affected, or might be directly affected, by the decision in the way that the jurisprudence required for personal standing - In fact, the evidence was to the contrary - There was no evidence that the applicants' right to vote in the director's election of 2008 was affected - Except for one (Ryan), the applicants all appeared on the initial voters list - In Ryan's case, he might not have been included on the initial voters list, but his right to vote was not affected and he might even have voted in the election - Ryan might have had to follow the procedure set forth in the decision to get his name on the voters list, but this change of procedure did not affect his substantive right to vote - The applicants also asserted that they wanted to ensure that Board director elections functioned in a democratic way - This was a public and a political concern and was not a matter which, on the present jurisprudence, meant that the applicants were directly affected - This application was brought as part of a political debate by applicants whose personal rights had not been affected and who had not demonstrated any prejudicial effect to them, or the imposition of a legal obligation upon them as a result of the decision - See paragraphs 44 to 54.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3704

Marketing of agricultural products - Grain - Canadian Wheat Board - The applicants applied for judicial review of certain directions of the Minister of Agriculture and Agrifood to the Canadian Wheat Board changing the way the voters list was compiled for the election of directors to the Board - What changed was the way the voting list of producers was compiled and the extra steps that someone with a permit book who did not deliver grain to the Board would have to take to get on the voters list - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Voting eligibility had not changed - The changes ensured compliance with the Canadian Wheat Board Act's and Regulations Respecting the Election of Directors of the Canadian Wheat Board's requirements - Further, there was simply no evidence of underhandedness or bad faith on the part of the Minister - The applicants' concerns were speculative - The decision, when read as a whole, included measures to ensure that everyone concerned understood the voter eligibility criteria, the reasons for the new approach, and the streamlining of the process whereby those producers and permit book holders who did not appear on the initial list compiled under s. 7 of the Regulations, were given every opportunity to register as voters under s. 8 - No one lost the right to vote - Those producers who had not delivered grain during the relevant period needed to ensure that, if they wished to participate in the election, they provided the information that would get them on the voters list - If confusion or unfairness resulted then the Minister would ensure that it was dealt with so that the integrity of the system was maintained - See paragraphs 55 to 72.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 12].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Charles (B.A.), [2006] 1 W.W.R. 637; 262 Sask.R. 239; 347 W.A.C. 239; 2005 SKCA 59, refd to. [para. 24].

League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 334 F.T.R. 63; 2008 FC 334, refd to. [para. 31].

Canadian Wheat Board v. Canada (Attorney General) (2009), 392 N.R. 149; 2009 FCA 214, refd to. [para. 36].

Lanser (Bankrupt), Re (1988), 90 A.R. 218; 60 Alta. L.R.(2d) 257 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 1 F.C.R. 53; 336 N.R. 101 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Wheat Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24, sect. 2(1), sect. 3.07, sect. 26(4) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 243 to 252 [para. 39].

Counsel:

Anders Bruun, for the applicant;

Jeff Dodgson, Kenneth J. Muys and James McLandress, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Anders Bruun, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicant;

Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, James McLandress, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Meyers, Norris, Penny, LLP, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on January 20, 2010, by Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 29, 2010.