Milk Board (B.C.) v. Grisnich et al., (1995) 61 B.C.A.C. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 81 (SCC)

Milk Bd. v. Grisnich (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 81 (SCC);

    100 W.A.C. 81

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Milk Board (appellant) v. Ronald Grisnich and Gilbert Grisnich (respondents)

(23927)

Indexed As: Milk Board (B.C.) v. Grisnich et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

June 22, 1995.

Summary:

The B.C. Milk Board made orders respect­ing the collection of levies for milk produc­tion. Dairy farmers challenged the levies, claiming that the orders were invalid where the Board failed to specify on the face of the orders the source of the power it was pur­porting to exercise.

The British Columbia Supreme Court upheld the validity of the orders. The dairy farmers appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 36 B.C.A.C. 12; 58 W.A.C. 12, allowed the appeal and held that the orders were invalid. The Board was required to state on the face of the orders whether it was exercising its power under the provincial Milk Industry Act or under the federal Agricultural Products Marketing Act. The Board appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the orders were not invalid for failing to state the source of the Board's authority on the face of the orders.

Administrative Law - Topic 8927

Boards and tribunals - Powers - Statutory powers - The B.C. Milk Board issued orders imposing levies on dairy farmers respecting milk production - The orders, on their face, did not specify whether the Board was exercising its powers under the provincial Milk Industry Act or the federal Agricultural Products Marketing Act - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that ad­ministrative bodies with powers derived from multiple sources need not specify, on the face of an order, from which source and provision their authority arose - The court stated that "when there are multiple sources of powers, it is irrelevant which power a board exercises once it is deter­mined that the board had the power from one source or another. ... the only require­ment is to possess jurisdiction, not to specify it on the face of every order".

Cases Noticed:

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Bari Cheese Ltd. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 1; 5 W.A.C. 1; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 329 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 3].

Milk Marketing Board (B.C.) v. Bari Cheese Ltd., [1993] B.C.J. No. 1748 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Clearview Dairy Farm Inc., [1987] 4 W.W.R. 279 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Birchwood Dairy Farm Ltd., [1986] 3 W.W.R. 481 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Thorcon Enterprises Ltd. v. West Vancouver (District) (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 259 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Thorcon Enterprises Ltd. v. West Vancouver (District), [1988] B.C.J. No. 323 (Q.L.), refd to. [para. 7].

Northern Telecom Ltée v. Lachine (Cité) (1991), 52 Q.A.C. 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Clearview Dairy Farm Inc., [1989] B.C.J. No. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1951] S.C.R. 31, refd to. [para. 26].

Potato Marketing Board (P.E.I.) v. Willis (H.B.) Inc., [1952] 2 S.C.R. 392, refd to. [para. 26].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1972, Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1970, Re, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198; 19 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-6, generally [para. 12].

Milk Industry Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 258, generally [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Keyes, John, Executive Legislation: Delegated Law Making by the Executive Branch (1992), pp. 138, 139 [para. 6].

La Forest, Gerard V., Delegation of Legislative Power in Canada (1975), 21 McGill L.J. 131, pp. 140 to 142 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Steven R. Stark and Anna Marie Laing, for the appellant;

Christopher Harvey, Q.C., for the respon­dents.

Solicitors of Record:

Peterson Stark, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on April 25, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 22, 1995, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Cory and Major, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 9;

La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 10 to 30.