National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, (1990) 114 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 29, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 114 N.R. 81 (SCC);45 Admin LR 161;[1990] SCJ No 110 (QL);[1990] ACS no 110;JE 90-1573;23 ACWS (3d) 688;114 NR 81;[1992] CarswellBC 318;1990 CanLII 49 (SCC);74 DLR (4th) 449;[1990] 2 SCR 1324;28 WAC 241

Nat. Corn Growers v. Cdn. Import Trib. (1990), 114 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

American Farm Bureau Federation (appellant) v. The Canadian Import Tribunal (respondent) and The Ontario Corn Producers' Association, the Manitoba Corn Growers Association Inc., the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, The British Columbia Division, Canadian Feed Industry Association, the British Columbia Turkey Association and the B.C. Chicken Growers Association (intervenors) St. Lawrence Starch Company Limited, Casco Company, Nacan Products Limited and King Grain (1985) Limited (appellants) v. The Canadian Import Tribunal (respondent) and The Ontario Corn Producers' Association, Manitoba Corn Growers Association Inc., the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, The British Columbia Division, Canadian Feed Industry Association, the British Columbia Turkey Association and the B.C. Chicken Growers Association (intervenors)

(Nos. 21366 and 21368)

Indexed As: National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C.*, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.

November 8, 1990.

Summary:

The Deputy Minister of Revenue for Customs and Excise imposed a countervailing duty under the Special Import Measures Act on grain corn imported from the United States because United States subsidies to grain corn producers were causing material injury to Canadian producers. Pursuant to s. 42 of the Act, the Canadian Import Tribunal held an inquiry respecting imported subsidized grain corn originating in the United States. The majority of the Tribunal held that the importation of grain corn from United States had caused or was likely to cause material injury to production in Canada of like goods and therefore the countervailing duty ordered by the Deputy Minister was justified. Two groups representing corn producers and farmers in the United States and a group of Canadian companies (the applicants) applied under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to set aside the Tribunal's decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal, MacGuigan, J., dissenting, in a decision reported 92 N.R. 264, dismissed the s. 28 applications. The applicants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals.

*Editors Note: Dickson, C.J.C., was chief justice at the time of hearing and Lamer, C.J.C., was Chief Justice at the time of judgment.

Administrative Law - Topic 1503

Finality - Final and conclusive clauses - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "s. 76 of the Special Import Measures Act provides that the [Canadian Import] Tribunal's decision, with limited exceptions, is final and conclusive. Given this provision, this court, therefore, will only interfere with the Tribunal's ruling if it acted outside the scope of its mandate by reason of its conclusions being patently unreasonable" - See paragraph 34.

Administrative Law - Topic 3201

Judicial review - General - Wilson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a concurring judgment, generally discussed the standard of review of an administrative tribunal's interpretation of provisions in its constitutive legislation, including a historical review of the jurisprudence and literature - See paragraphs 67 to 90.

Customs - Topic 9504

Dumping and subsidies - Legislation - Interpretation - The Canadian Special Import Measures Act was designed to implement Canadian obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) - Section 42 provided for an inquiry by the Canadian Import Tribunal where the Tribunal received from the deputy minister a preliminary determination of dumping or subsidizing - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed what use could be made of the GATT treaty in interpreting s. 42 - See paragraphs 36 to 38.

Customs - Topic 9504

Dumping and subsidies - Legislation - Interpretation - The Canadian Import Tribunal on an inquiry under s. 42 of the Special Import Measures Act, held that a United States grain corn subsidy program caused material injury to Canadian producers, therefore a countervailing duty was justified - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Tribunal's finding of material injury was not unreasonable and should not be disturbed - See paragraphs 55 to 64.

Customs - Topic 9504

Dumping and subsidies - Legislation - Interpretation - The Canadian Import Tribunal on an inquiry under s. 42 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), held that a United States grain corn subsidy program caused material injury to Canadian producers, therefore a countervailing duty was justified - The Supreme Court of Canada held that in interpreting s. 42 of SIMA and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that it was reasonable for the Tribunal to consider potential imports in determining whether the United States subsidy program was causing material injury to Canadian producers - See paragraphs 32 to 49.

Customs - Topic 9504

Dumping and subsidies - Legislation - Interpretation - The Canadian Import Tribunal on an inquiry under s. 42 of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), held that a United States grain corn subsidy program caused material injury to Canadian producers, therefore a countervailing duty was justified - The Supreme Court of Canada held that in interpreting s. 42 of SIMA and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it was not unreasonable for the Tribunal to make a finding of material injury even in the absence of an increase in the amount of imports - See paragraphs 50 to 54.

Customs - Topic 9504

Dumping and subsidies - Legislation - Interpretation - [See Administrative Law - Topic 1503].

Statutes - Topic 9403

Treaty implementation legislation - Interpretation - [See first Customs - Topic 9504].

Cases Noticed:

Bell Canada v. Canada (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [paras. 33, 91].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237; 97 D.L.R.(3d) 417; 79 C.L.L.C. 14,209, refd to. [paras. 33, 35, 64, 67, 68, 74 et seq.].

Schavernoch v. Foreign Claims Commission, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 1092; 44 N.R. 166, refd to. [para. 38].

Japan Electrical Manufacturers Association v. Anti-dumping Tribunal, [1982] 2 F.C. 816, refd to. [para. 45].

British Steel Corp. v. U.S. (1984), 6 I.T.R.D. 1065, refd to. [para. 52].

Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co. v. Arthurs, [1969] S.C.R. 85, refd to. [para. 73].

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 796, [1970] S.C.R. 425, refd to. [para. 73].

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 W.L.R. 163, refd to. [para. 73].

Service Employees' International Union, Local No. 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses Association, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 77].

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.), Local 720 v. Volvo Canada Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 178; 27 N.R. 502, refd to. [paras. 81, 83].

Volvo Canada Ltd. - see International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.), Local 720.

McConnell v. Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada Ltd. and O'Shea, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 245; 29 N.R. 109, refd to. [paras. 81, 83].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Branch 63 v. Alberta Public Service Employees Relations Board and Board of Governors of Olds College, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 923; 42 N.R. 559; 37 A.R. 281, refd to. [paras. 82, 83].

Teamsters Local Union 938 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America et al. v. Massicotte and Canada Labour Relations Board, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 710; 44 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 83].

Halifax Longshoremen's Association v. Nauss et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 245; 46 N.R. 324, refd to. [para. 83].

Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476; 55 N.R. 194, refd to. [para. 83].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983, 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 83, 89].

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Le Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 457, refd to. [paras. 86, 90].

Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 89, 90].

Statutes Noticed:

Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, art. 6 [para. 5].

Canadian Import Tribunal Rules, SOR/85-1068, rule 36 [paras. 5, 44].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, sect. 28 [paras. 1, 5, 15, 32, 33].

GATT - see General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, generally [para. 1 et seq.]; art. 6(a) [paras. 5, 46, 47, 51].

Special Import Measures Act, S.C. 1984, c. 25, sect. 2(1) [para. 99]; sect. 31(1) [para. 3]; sect. 38(1) [paras. 4, 5]; sect. 38(2) [para. 5]; sect. 42 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 42(1) [para. 99]; sect. 76 [paras. 5, 34]; sect. 76(1) [paras. 5, 99].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arthurs, H.W., Protection Against Judicial Review (1983), 43 R. du B. 277, p. 289 [para. 85].

Arthurs, H.W., Rethinking Administrative Law: A Slightly Dicey Business (1979), 17 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1, p. 7 [para. 68].

Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law (3rd Ed. 1979), p. 51 [para. 38].

Cane, Peter, An Introduction to Administrative Law (1986), pp. 51 [para. 38], 52 [para. 73].

Craig, P.P., Administrative Law (1983), p. 29 [para. 68].

Craig, P.P., Dicey: Unitary, Self-Correcting Democracy and Public Law (1990), 106 L.Q.R. 105, pp. 113 [para. 69]; 118, 119 [para. 72].

Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885), generally [para. 68].

Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th Ed. 1959), pp. 202, 203 [para. 68].

Dussault, René et Louis Borgeat, Traité de droit administratif, t. III, 2e éd. 1989, p. 42 [para. 68].

Evans, J.M., Developments in Administrative Law: The 1984-85 Term (1986), 8 Supreme Court L. Rev. 1, pp. 27, 28 [para. 76].

Evans, J.M. et al., Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1989), pp. 13 [para. 68]; 414 [paras. 67, 75]; 565 [para. 73].

Hewart, Lord, The New Despotism (1945), p. 37 [para. 70].

Jennings, Sir William Ivor, The Law and the Constitution (5th Ed. 1959), pp. 42-62 [para. 71].

Langille, Brian, Developments in Labour Law: The 1981-82 Term (1983), 5 Supreme Court L.R. 225, p. 246 [para. 81].

Langille, Brian, Judicial Review, Judicial Revisionism and Judicial Responsibility (1986), 17 R.G.D. 169, pp. 195 [para. 82]; 197-214 [para. 88].

Victor, A. Paul, Injury Determinations by the United States International Trade Commission in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings (1984), 16 N.Y.U.J. Int'l L. & Pol. 749, pp. 756, 757 [para. 53].

Wade, Henry William Rawson, Administrative Law (6th Ed. 1988), c. 2 [para. 68].

Counsel:

John T. Morin, Q.C., and Robert W. Staley, for the appellant, American Farm Bureau Federation;

J.L. McDouglass, Q.C., R.C. Heintzman and D.H. Pearson, for the appellants, St. Lawrence Starch Co. et al.;

No one appeared for respondent;

C.J. Michael Flavel and Geoffrey C. Kubrick, for the intervenors, Ontario Corn Producers' Association et al.;

Gordon B. Greenwood, for the intervenors, the B.C. Division, Canadian Feed Industry Association et al.

Solicitors of Record:

Fasken Campbell Godfrey, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, American Farm Bureau Federation;

Gottlieb, Kaylor & Stocks, Montréal, Québec, for the appellants, St. Lawrence Starch Co. et al.;

McCarthy Tétrault, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenors, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association et al.;

McMaster Meighen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenors, the British Columbia Division, Canadian Freed Industry Association et al.

These appeals were heard on March 29, 1990, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, C.J.C., * Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the court was rendered on November 8, 1990, in both official languages, including the following opinions:

Gonthier, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 65;

Wilson, J. (Dickson, C.J.C. and Lamer, C.J.C., * concurring) - see paragraphs 66 to 101.