Delight et al. v. Egg Marketing Board (B.C.) et al., (1991) 3 B.C.A.C. 259 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Hollinrake, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 01, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 259 (CA)

Delight v. Egg Marketing Bd. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 259 (CA);

    7 W.A.C. 259

MLB headnote and full text

Christine Delight and Dick Delight (appellants/respondents) v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board (respondent/appellant) and The Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenor)

(CA013521)

Indexed As: Delight et al. v. Egg Marketing Board (B.C.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Hollinrake, JJ.A.

October 1, 1991.

Summary:

This case involved the applicability of the Egg Marketing Board's egg quota system to the producer of free-range eggs for a specialty market.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dealt with the issues accordingly.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3783

Marketing of agricultural products - Eggs - Quotas - The Egg Marketing Board (B.C.) adopted an egg quota system, the British Columbia Egg Marketing Scheme, 1967 - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that an egg quota system was authorized by the Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act - See paragraphs 40 and 41 - Further, the establishment of the quota system by the Egg Marketing Board, rather than by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, was not an unauthorized delegation of power - See paragraphs 42, 43.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3783

Marketing of agricultural products - Eggs - Quotas - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that under the British Columbia Egg Marketing Scheme, 1967, an egg producer who does not market his eggs through normal marketing channels or have them marketed by the Egg Marketing Board is not eligible to hold a quota to market the eggs produced by him - The Scheme, however, does not prohibit a producer who is not eligible to hold a quota from marketing his eggs through other than normal marketing channels - A producer of free-range eggs was held to be such a producer - See paragraph 65.

Cases Noticed:

Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board, [1938] 4 D.L.R. 81 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Bari Cheese Ltd. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 1; 5 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

British Columbia Egg Marketing Scheme - see Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act Regulations.

Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act, S.B.C. 1934, c. 38, generally [para. 6].

Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 263, generally [para. 7].

Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act, S.B.C. 1974, c. 111, sect. 24 [para. 10].

Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 296, sect. 11 [paras. 3, 51].

Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act (1960) Regulations, British Columbia Egg Marketing Scheme, Reg. 166/74 [para. 8]; Reg. 173/67, generally [para. 7 et seq.]; sect. 2 [para. 54]; sect. 3, sect. 15, sect. 16, sect. 17, sect. 37 [para. 59].

Counsel:

Bruce F. Fraser, Q.C., for the appellant;

   David A. Critchley, for the respondents;

George H. Copley, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Hollinrake, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by Southin, J.A., on October 1, 1991.