Central Canada Potash Co. and Attorney General of Canada v. Government of Saskatchewan

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Pratte, JJ.
• Citation: (1978), 23 N.R. 481 (SCC),[1979] 1 SCR 42,23 NR 481,3 ACWS 181,88 DLR (3d) 609,[1978] 6 WWR 400,6 CCLT 265,1978 CanLII 21 (SCC)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 03 October 1978

Central Can. Potash Co. v. Sask. (1978), 23 N.R. 481 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Central Canada Potash Co. Limited and Attorney General of Canada v. Government of Saskatchewan

Indexed As: Central Canada Potash Co. and Attorney General of Canada v. Government of Saskatchewan

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson and Pratte, JJ.

October 3, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiffs' action against the Province of Saskatchewan for a declaration that the Saskatchewan Potash Conservation Regulations were invalid. In a successful effort to stabilize the supply and price of potash the Province of Saskatchewan passed the Potash Conservation Regulations which controlled and limited the production of potash by producers in the Province and setting a minimum price for its sale. Virtually all potash produced was exported from the Province, primarily to the United States. Each producer was allocated production amounts, in every case less than capacity and in the plaintiff's case considerably less than what it had contracted to sell. When the plaintiff continued to produce more than the amount allocated to it under the Regulations, the Province ordered the plaintiff to reduce its production to prescribed limits or face the loss of its production license under the Regulations. The plaintiff brought an action for a declaration that the Regulations were ultra vires and an action in tort for damages for intimidation.

Dispery, J., of the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench allowed both actions in a judgment reported [1975] 5 W.W.R. 193; 57 D.L.R.(3d) 7. The Province appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1977] 1 W.W.R. 487; 79 D.L.R.(3d) 203, allowed the appeal and dismissed both actions. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part and held that the Regulations were ultra vires the Province as an infringement of the federal power over trade and commerce. See paragraphs 21 to 42.

The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal of the action in tort for damages for intimidation. The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was not intimidation to order the plaintiff to comply with the Regulations under a lawful threat to revoke its license. See paragraphs 45 to 107.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5670

Enumeration in s. 91 of British North America Act - Federal power of regulation of trade and commerce - British North America Act, 1867, s. 191(2) - In a successful effort to stabilize the supply and price of potash the Province of Saskatchewan imposed regulations controlling and limiting the production of potash by producers in the Province and setting a minimum price - Virtually all potash produced was exported from the Province, primarily to the United States - Each producer was allocated production amounts, in every case less than capacity and in the plaintiff's case considerably less than what it had contracted to sell - The plaintiff brought an action attacking the validity of the regulations - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the regulatory scheme for rationalizing the potash industry in Saskatchewan was ultra vires the Province as an infringement on the federal power over trade and commerce - See paragraphs 21 to 42.

Torts - Topic 5286

Interference with economic relations - Intimidation - Acts not constituting intimidation - Contrary to a provincial regulatory scheme under the Mineral Resources Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 50, the plaintiff potash producer mined more than the amount allocated to it - The provincial government ordered the plaintiff to reduce its production to prescribed limits or face the loss of its production license under the regulations - The plaintiff brought an action in tort for intimidation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it was not intimidation to order the plaintiff to comply with the regulations under a lawful threat to revoke its license, even if the regulations should subsequently be declared invalid - See paragraphs 45 to 107.

Cases Noticed:

Attorney General for Manitoba v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association, [1971] S.C.R. 689, refd to. [para. 28].

Carnation Company Ltd. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board, [1968] S.C.R. 238, dist. [para. 28].

Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board, [1938] A.C. 708, refd to. [para. 28].

Re Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario), [1957] S.C.R. 198, refd to. [para. 28].

Re Agricultural Products Marketing Act (Canada), Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act (Canada) and Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario) (1978), 19 N.R. 361, appld. [para. 38].

Re Grain Marketing Act, 1931, [1931] 2 W.W.R. 146, refd to. [para. 38].

Lawson v. Interior Tree Fruit & Vegetable Committee of Direction, [1931] S.C.R. 357, refd to. [para. 38].

Re Sheep and Swine Marketing Scheme, [1941] 3 D.L.R. 569, refd to. [para. 38].

Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Ltd. v. Government of Saskatchewan, [1977] 6 W.W.R. 607; 18 N.R. 107, appld. [para. 39].

Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] A.C. 1129, dist. [para. 62].

Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, [1975] A.C. 295, folld. [para. 94].

Roman Corporation et al. v. Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Company Limited et al., [1973] S.C.R. 820, appld. [para. 102].

Statutes Noticed:

British North America Act, 1867, sect. 91(2).

Mineral Resources Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 50, sect. 3, sect. 9, sect. 10 [para. 8]; sect. 11A [para. 77].

Potash Conservation Regulations (Sask.), 287/69, sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5 [paras. 9 and 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (14th Ed.), para. 802, p. 414 [para. 61].

Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (10th Ed.), p. 458 [para. 88].

Counsel:

D.K. Laidlaw, Q.C., J.L. Robertson, Q.C. and A.J. Lenczner, for the appellant Central Canada Potash Co. Limited;

T.B. Smith, Q.C. and Barbara Reed, for the appellant Attorney General of Canada;

George J.D. Taylor, Q.C. and Gwen Randall, for the respondent;

Bernard Flynn, for the intervenants Attorney General of Quebec;

Alan Reid and B.A. Crane, for the intervenants Attorney General of New Brunswick;

M.S. Samphir and D.D. Blevins, for the intervenants Attorney General of Manitoba;

Wm. Henkel, Q.C. and Stanley G. Fowler, for the intervenants Attorney General of Alberta;

James A. Nesbitt, Q.C. and Margaret Cameron, for the intervenants Attorney General of Newfoundland.

This case was heard on December 6, 9, 1977, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 3, 1978, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

LASKIN, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 1 to 44;

MARTLAND, J. - see paragraphs 45 to 107.

RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, and PRATTE, JJ., concurred with LASKIN, C.J.C., and MARTLAND, J.