Hallmark Poultry Processors Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Marketing Board et al., 2000 BCSC 569

• Judge: Lowry, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 04, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2000 BCSC 569;[2000] B.C.T.C. 206 (SC)

Hallmark Poultry v. Marketing Bd., [2000] B.C.T.C. 206 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.T.C. TBEd. AP.053

Hallmark Poultry Processors Ltd., Sunrise Poultry Processors Ltd., J.D. Sweid Ltd., Sunwest Food Processors Ltd., Ashton Enterprises Ltd., Wayside Farms Inc., Dogwood Poultry Ltd. and High Plains Poultry Farms Ltd. (petitioners) v. British Columbia Marketing Board and British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board (respondents) and Canadian Chicken Farmers of Canada (intervenor)

(A993242; 2000 BCSC 569)

Indexed As: Hallmark Poultry Processors Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Marketing Board et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Lowry, J.

April 4, 2000.

Summary:

The British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board entered into agreements with its counterparts in other provinces to constrain overproduction. Under the agreements, the board would be penalized for exceeding "caps" on production. Chicken processors challenged the validity of the agreements, arguing that they illegally fettered the board's discretion. The board countered that the governing statute permitted it to enter into agreements which could influence or constrain their discretion. The processors applied for declaratory relief.

The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the application. It was for the government to decide to participate in a national plan, not the board.

Administrative Law - Topic 8264

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3503

Marketing of agricultural products - Marketing legislation - General - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3522

Marketing of agricultural products - Boards - Jurisdiction - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3541

Marketing of agricultural products - Production and import quotas - General - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3741

Marketing of agricultural products - Fowl - General - See paragraphs 1 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 18].

Agricultural Marketing Products Act, Re, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 18].

TED-100 Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minister of Labour), [1990] B.C.J. No. 1195 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

B.C. Milk Marketing Board and Canadian Dairy Commission v. Aquilini et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned 493 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Leth Farms Ltd. et al. v. Alberta Turkey Growers Marketing Board et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 50; 220 W.A.C. 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Natural Products Marketing (B.C.) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 330, sect. 4 [para. 16].

British Columbia Chicken Marketing Scheme, 1961, B.C. Reg. 188/61, sect. 4.01(a) [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wade, H.W.R., Administrative Law (7th Ed. 1994), pp. 368-370 [para. 21].

Counsel:

C.H. Harvey, Q.C., for the petitioners;

F.A.V. Falzon, for the respondent, British Columbia Marketing Board;

D.A. Scullion, for the respondent, British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board;

G.H. Copley, Q.C., for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

D.K. Wilson and M.L. Starchuk, for the intervenor, Canadian Chicken Farmers of Canada.

This application was heard on March 24 and 25, 2000, in Vancouver, B.C., by Lowry, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver, who delivered the following decision on April 4, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.