Marlin Farms Ltd. et al. v. Royal Bank of Canada and Farm Tenure Arbitration Board, (1993) 110 Sask.R. 118 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 22, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 110 Sask.R. 118 (QB)

Marlin Farms Ltd. v. Royal Bk. (1993), 110 Sask.R. 118 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an application for judicial review pursuant to Part 52 of the Queen's Bench Rules

Marlin Farms Ltd., Rolf Henning and Ben Henning (applicants) v. The Royal Bank of Canada and the Farm Tenure Arbitration Board (respondents)

(1993 Q.B. No. 118)

Indexed As: Marlin Farms Ltd. et al. v. Royal Bank of Canada and Farm Tenure Arbitration Board

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Klebuc, J.

April 22, 1993.

Summary:

Two brothers each owned 50% of the shares of Marlin Farms Ltd., which owned 1,337 acres of farmland. The land was vol­untarily transferred to the Royal Bank. The bank offered to lease the land to the brothers. The brothers applied to the Farm Tenure Arbitration Board for a review of the rent, terms and conditions of the lease offered by the bank. The board set the rental rate to be charged. The brothers sought to quash the decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope of review - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the scope of a review by a court of a determination of facts and law by a tribunal - See para­graphs 10 to 16.

Administrative Law - Topic 5011

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Error of jurisdiction - [See Trade Regulation - Topic 3004 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5015

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Manifestly unreason­able decisions - Two brothers each owned 50% of Marlin Farms Ltd., which owned farmland that was voluntarily transferred to the Royal Bank - The bank offered to lease the land to the brothers - The brothers applied to the Farm Tenure Arbi­tration Board for a review of the lease - The board set the rental rate to be charged - The brothers applied for certiorari to quash the board's decision, arguing, inter alia, that it improperly stated the appli­cant's evidence respecting farm leases in the area - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that there was evi­dence upon which the board could set the rent and the fact that the board may not have accepted all of the applicant's evi­dence, was not in itself patently unreason­able.

Administrative Law - Topic 5015

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Manifestly unreason­able decisions - Two brothers each owned 50% of Marlin Farms Ltd., which owned farmland that was voluntarily transferred to the Royal Bank - The bank offered to lease the land to the brothers - The brothers applied to the Farm Tenure Arbi­tration Board for a review of the lease - The board set the rental rate to be charged - The brothers applied for certiorari to quash the decision, arguing, inter alia, that it was patently unreasonable because the board stated that farm leases between mortgagors and mortgagees were not arm's length transactions - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the board's decision to partially discount the rents payable under leases by lenders to dispossessed farmers was not patently unreasonable.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3004

Agricultural lending - Farm security legis­lation - Interpretation - Two brothers each owned 50% of Marlin Farms Ltd., which owned 1,337 acres of farmland assessed at $37,870 - The land was voluntarily trans­ferred to the Royal Bank, who offered to lease it to the brothers - On an application by the brothers, the Farm Tenure Arbitra­tion Board set the rental rate - The brothers applied for certiorari, arguing that the board exceeded its jurisdiction under the Saskatchewan Farm Security Act, because its decision purported to apply to more than the limit under s. 27(9)(2), being the greater of 1,280 acres and an area with an assessment of $36,000 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the board did not exceed its jurisdic­tion, where the brothers constituted two separate family units within the meaning of s. 27.9(1) and the limits for the pur­poses of s. 27.9(2) doubled.

Words and Phrases

Family unit - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that two brothers who each owned 50% of the shares of a farming company, constituted two separate family units within the meaning of s. 27.9(1) of the Saskatchewan Farm Security Act, S.S. 1988-89, c. S-17.1.

Cases Noticed:

Provincial Auditor v. Saskatchewan Government Employees' Union and Labour Relations Board (Sask.), [1987] 1 W.W.R. 193; 49 Sask.R. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

McConnell, Hopkinson, Wilson and Benjamin v. Douglas Aircraft Co. of Canada Ltd. and O'Shea (1979), 29 N.R. 109; 99 D.L.R.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Barclay v. Moose Jaw Sash & Door Co. (1963) Ltd., International Wood­workers of America and Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (1982), 15 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Moose Jaw Sash and Door Co. (1963) Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, AFL. CIO. CLC. and Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (1982), 16 Sask.R. 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Sollars v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1832 and Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (1984), 32 Sask.R. 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 1120 et al. v. Prince Albert Pulp Co. (1986), 52 Sask.R. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Service Employees' International Union, Local No. 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses Association and Nipawin Union Hospital and the Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 14].

Shalansky and Saskatchewan Union of Nurses v. Regina Pasqua Hospital (1982), 15 Sask.R. 253; 82 C.L.L.C. 14,186 (C.A.), affd. [1983] 1 S.C.R. 303; 47 N.R. 76; 22 Sask.R. 153; 83 C.L.L.C. 14,026; 145 D.L.R.(3d) 413, refd to. [para. 15].

University Hospital v. Service Employees International Union, Local 333 U.H. (1986), 46 Sask.R. 19; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Welk v. Saskatchewan Social Services Appeal Board, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 478; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 475 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Saskatchewan Farm Security Act, S.S. 1988-89, c. S-17.1, sect. 27.9, sect. 27.31(1), sect. 27.31(7), sect. 27.31(8), sect. 27.51 [para. 9].

Saskatchewan Farm Security Act Regula­tions (Sask.), sect. 5(2) [para. 9].

Counsel:

C.D. Demmans, for the applicants;

R.J. Kruzeniski, Q.C., for the respon­dents.

This application was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following judgment on April 22, 1993.