Egg Producers Board (Alta.) v. Donzelmann, (1997) 195 A.R. 304 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 08, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 195 A.R. 304 (QBM)

Egg Producers Bd. v. Donzelmann (1997), 195 A.R. 304 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, S.A. 1987, c. M-5.1 (as amended) and Regulations thereunder.

The Alberta Egg Producers Board (applicant) v. Arnold Donzelmann and Shelley Donzelmann (respondents)

(Action No. 9601-03566)

Indexed As: Egg Producers Board (Alta.) v. Donzelmann

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Calgary

Waller, Master

January 8, 1997.

Summary:

The Egg Production and Marketing Regu­lations and the Alberta Egg Producers Plan Regulations applied to any person possessing more than 300 laying hens. Upon discover­ing that the Donzelmanns possessed 6,000 hens, the Alberta Egg Producers Board sought removal of all hens in excess of the 300 quota. The Donzelmanns complied with a consent order. It was later discovered that the facility had been re-stocked with 3,440 hens. The Donzelmanns claimed that they only owned 264 hens and that the remaining hens were housed by them for others under lease agreements. The Board commenced a compliance action before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. The Donzelmanns sought review of the Board's decision under s. 36 of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act. The Board declined to review the matter. The appeal tribunal declined to hear the matter until the enforcement proceedings' conclusion. The Donzelmanns appealed, by special application, the Board's refusal to hear representations concerning the enforce­ment proceedings. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the compliance action despite the Donzelmann's request for an audience and appeal.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that he had jurisdiction to hear the compliance action and directed the Don­zelmanns to immediately remove all hens in excess of 300 from their production facility.

Equity - Topic 68

General - Maxims - Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta - In response to an undertaking to produce any written record of its decision to proceed with a compliance action, the Alberta Egg Pro­ducers Board responded that there existed no written record of the decision - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the absence of specific written minutes authorizing the action was insignificant - Given the Board's refusal to reconsider the matter, the doctrine of omnia presumuntur rite esse acta applied - See paragraphs 21 to 22.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3532

Marketing of agricultural products - Boards - Decisions - Scope of review - The Alberta Egg Producers Board com­menced a compliance action against the Donzelmanns before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench - The Donzelmanns requested a review of the Board's decision under s. 36 of the Marketing of Agricul­tural Products Act - Both the Board and appeal tribunal refused to hear the matter - The Donzelmanns appealed the Board's refusal to hear representations concerning the compliance action - At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the compliance action despite the Donzel­manns' request for an audience and appeal - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the court had jurisdiction - The appeal process under the Act was limited to administrative matters - Enforcement matters were within the court's absolute jurisdiction - Responding to the compliance application was the only right of audience - See paragraphs 9 to 23.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3532

Marketing of agricultural products - Boards - Decisions - Scope of review - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the appeal provisions found in Part 5 of the Marketing of Agri­cultural Products Act were limited to administrative matters and that the court retained jurisdiction to hear compliance actions since: (1) enforcement matters were within the court's absolute jurisdic­tion; (2) time limits provided for reviews and appeals under the Act were inconsis­tent with the urgency required in compli­ance actions; (3) s. 2 of the Appeal Tribu­nal Regulations clearly distinguished between compliance actions and reviews of administrative actions; and (4) the use of the word "opinion" in s. 45(2) of the Act indicated that compliance actions could be commenced by the Alberta Egg Producers Board without a full hearing, including the right to be heard - See paragraphs 12 to 20.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3783

Marketing of agricultural products - Eggs - Quotas - The Egg Production and Mar­keting Regulations and the Alberta Egg Producers Plan Regulations applied to any person possessing more than 300 laying hens - Upon discovering that the Donzel­mann farm was stocked with 3,440 hens, the Alberta Egg Producers Board com­menced a compliance action before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench - The Donzelmanns claimed that they only owned 264 hens and that the remaining hens were housed by them for others under lease agreements - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and directed the Donzelmanns to remove the hens in excess of the 300 quota - The undefined relationships between the Donzelmanns and the other farmers could only be construed as an attempt to circumvent the operation of the Regulations - See paragraphs 23 to 26.

Words and Phrases

Opinion - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of "opinion", as found in s. 45(2) of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Acts, S.A. 1987, c. M-5.1 - See paragraphs 18 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

Delight et al. v. Egg Marketing Board (B.C.) et al. (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 259; 7 W.A.C. 259; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Appeal Tribunal Operations - see Market­ing of Agricultural Products Act Regula­tions (Alta.).

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, S.A. 1987, c. M-5.1, sect. 36 [para. 5]; sect. 45(2) [para. 18].

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act Regulations (Alta.), Appeal Tribunal Operations, Reg. 198/92, sect. 2(1) [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Concise Oxford Dictionary [para. 19].

Counsel:

Loran V. Halyn (Sugimoto & Co.), Calgary, Alberta, for the applicant;

Bradley V. Odsen (Pierzchalski & Co.), Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondents.

This matter was heard before Waller, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on January 8, 1997.