Milk Marketing Board (B.C.) v. Bari Cheese Ltd. et al., (1996) 79 B.C.A.C. 34 (CA)

• Judge: McEachern. C.J.B.C., Legg, Finch, Ryan and Donald, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: August 14, 1996
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1996), 79 B.C.A.C. 34 (CA)

Milk Marketing Bd. v. Bari Cheese (1996), 79 B.C.A.C. 34 (CA);

    129 W.A.C. 34

MLB headnote and full text

British Columbia Milk Marketing Board (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Bari Cheese Ltd. et al. (defendants/respondents) and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenor/appellant)

(CA17634; CA17635; CA17636; CA17637; CA17638; CA17639; CA17640; CA17641; CA17642; CA17647; CA18029; CA18030; CA18031; CA18032; CA18033; CA18034; CA18035; CA18036)

Indexed As: Milk Marketing Board (B.C.) v. Bari Cheese Ltd. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

McEachern. C.J.B.C., Legg, Finch, Ryan and Donald, JJ.A.

August 14, 1996.

Summary:

The British Columbia Milk Marketing Board levied against the defendant producers on milk deliveries. The Board applied for enforcement of its orders for levies and for injunctions to prevent the producers from producing and selling dairy products without licences and quotas from the Board. The trial judge dismissed the claims on the ground that the Board's regulation and orders were ultra vires the province as legislation aimed at interprovincial trade. The judge, inter alia, awarded increased costs to the producers at 75 percent of special costs. The Board appealed all matters.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Constitutional Law - Topic 5670

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Regulation of trade and commerce - Interprovincial trade - The Milk Marketing Board (B.C.), acting under Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act Regulation 101/90 and the Board's orders, collected levies from producers exceeding their allocated quota or without quota - The regulation expressly pro­hib­ited pro­duction of milk or dairy prod­ucts in B.C. without quota - The orders pro­hibited persons from acting as pro­ducers or vendors of milk without a Board licence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that Regulation 101/90 and the orders relating to industrial milk Market Sharing Quota were ultra vires as regulat­ing interprovincial trade - The court affirmed that the levies, licences and quota were part of the scheme and therefore ultra vires - The Board was not entitled to collect levies or require licences - See paragraphs 21 to 47, 54 to 72.

Constitutional Law - Topic 9708

Agriculture (s. 95) - Marketing Boards - Levies - The Milk Marketing Board (B.C.), acting under Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act Regulation 101/90 and the Board's orders, collected levies from pro­ducers exceeding their allocated quota or without quota - The regulation express­ly prohibited production of milk or dairy products in B.C. without quota - The orders prohibited persons from acting as producers or vendors of milk without a Board licence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the regula­tion and orders relating to industrial milk Market Sharing Quota were ultra vires and could not be sustained as laws relating to "agriculture" within s. 95 of the Constitu­tion Act, 1867 - Milk was regulated by the Board only when it became an article of trade, hence it did not fall under s. 95 - See paragraphs 48 to 53.

Practice - Topic 7102

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Costs payable on solicitor and client basis - Milk producers were suc­cessful in a dispute with the B.C. Milk Marketing Board over levies, licences and quotas - The issues were factually and legally complex - Extensive accounting evidence was introduced - The National Milk Marketing Plan and related provincial and federal legislation was reviewed - Argument alone lasted almost three weeks - The outcome was important not only to the parties but other dairy farmers and milk marketing boards - The case repre­sented a huge financial risk to the pro­ducers, who would be out of business if unsuccessful - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the producers should recover all their costs at 75 percent of special costs, with no costs to the Board - See paragraphs 93 to 102.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3606

Marketing of agricultural products - Dairy products - Levies - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 5670 ].

Words and Phrases

Milk - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the word "milk" in Regulation 101/90 under the Natural Prod­ucts Marketing (BC) Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 296, and the B.C. Milk Marketing Board's orders relating to industrial milk Market Sharing Quota did not include cream - See paragraphs 85 to 92.

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia (Milk Board) v. Clear­view Dairy Farm Inc. (1986), 69 B.C.L.R. 220 (S.C.), affd. [1987] 4 W.W.R. 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

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. 29].

Carnation Co. v. Quebec (Agriculture Marketing Board), [1968] S.C.R. 238, consd. [para. 29].

Central Canada Potash Co. and Canada (Attorney General) v. Saskatchewan, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 42; 23 N.R. 481; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.) refd to. [para. 31].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 31].

General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing Ltd., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; 93 N.R. 326; 32 O.A.C. 332, refd to. [para. 31].

Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association, [1971] S.C.R. 689 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 34].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Bari Cheese Ltd. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 1; 5 W.A.C. 1; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Grisnich et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 895; 183 N.R. 39; 61 B.C.A.C. 81; 100 W.A.C. 81; 7 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Manitoba Grain Co. (1922), 66 D.L.R. 406 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co., [1925] S.C.R. 434, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Davenport, [1928] 1 W.W.R. 876 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee v. Crystal Dairy Ltd., [1933] 1 D.L.R. 82 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Reference re Validity of s. 5(a) of Dairy Industry Act (Canada) (Margarine Case), [1949] S.C.R. 1, affd. [1951] A.C. 79 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Dominion Stores Ltd. and Ontario (Attorney General) (1979), 30 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Air Canada and Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. v. British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1161; 95 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 58].

Air Canada v. Ontario (Minister of Revenue) (1995), 123 D.L.R.(4th) 715 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Burns Foods Ltd., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 494; 1 N.R. 147, refd to. [para. 71].

Dominion Natural Products Marketing Egg Reference, [1937] A.C. 377 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

Snook v. London and West Riding Invest­ments Ltd. [1967] 2 Q.B. 786 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97; 30 B.C.A.C. 1; 49 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Schreiber Brothers Ltd. v. Currie Products Ltd. and Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 78; 31 N.R. 335; 108 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 80].

Atley v. Popkum Water Slides Ltd. (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 193; 21 W.A.C. 193; 64 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Wilson v. Guichon and Hui (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 284; 39 W.A.C. 284; 76 B.C.L.R.(2d) 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R.(2d) 309 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 94].

British Columbia v. Worthington (Canada) Inc., [1989] 1 W.W.R. 1 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

Hammond v. Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters (1991), 47 Admin. L.R. 20 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

National Hockey League et al. v. Pepsi Cola Canada Ltd. (1993), 102 D.L.R.(4th) 80 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 8; 92 W.A.C. 8, refd to. [para. 102].

Statutes Noticed:

Agricultural Products Marketing Act Orders (Can.), Brit­ish Columbia Federal Milk Order, P.C. 1973-2911, sect. 2 [para. 86].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(2) [para. 33]; sect. 92, sect. 95 [para. 45].

Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 296, sect. 2(2) [para. 22]; sect. 12(1) [para. 23].

Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act Regulations (B.C.), Reg. 101/90, sect. 1 [para. 6]; sect. 2(1) [para. 24]; sect. 6 [para. 25]; sect. 6(2)(a), sect. 6(2)(b) [para. 7]; sect. 6(4)(b) [para. 10]; sect. 7 [para. 26].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 57(15) [para. 96].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed.) pp. 15-7, 15-8 [para. 31]; 30-16.2 to 30-17 [para. 60].

Counsel:

Steven R. Stark and Thomas P. Harding, for the plaintiff/appellant;

Christopher Harvey Q.C., David C. Harris and Tracey M. Cohen, for the defen­dants, respondents;

G. Copley, for the intervenor/appellant, Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 13 to 17, 1996, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Legg, Finch, Ryan and Donald, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Legg, J.A., on August 14, 1996.