Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. et al. v. Canada and Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, (1994) 73 F.T.R. 50 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 08, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 73 F.T.R. 50 (TD)

Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. v. Can. (1994), 73 F.T.R. 50 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Pineview Poultry Products Ltd., Gary Villetard operating as Villetard's Eggs, Villetard's Eggs, 355210 Alberta Ltd., Frank Richardson, Gary Villetard and Pat Martel (plaintiffs) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency (defendants) and Minister of Justice, Government of the Northwest Territories (intervenor)

(T-1942-92)

Indexed As: Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. et al. v. Canada and Canadian Egg Marketing Agency

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

January 27, 1994.

Summary:

The plaintiffs were a group of companies and individuals involved in commercial egg production and egg marketing in the North­west Territories. The Canadian Egg Market­ing Agency issued notices to Pineview and Villetard's Eggs of its intention to revoke or sus­pend their egg marketing licences because they had engaged in interprovincial market­ing of eggs without holding a federal quota. The plaintiffs claimed that the legislative scheme excluded a producer from the Northwest Territories from being assigned a quota. They applied for a declaration that s. 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(e) of the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations and ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1) of the Canadian Egg Marketing Quota Regulations i) did not apply to commercial egg producers in the Northwest Territories; ii) contravened s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867; or iii) violated ss. 6(2)(b), 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency applied to strike the statement of claim.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, struck out the portions of the statement of claim that claimed the impugned provi­sions did not apply to the Northwest Terri­tories and that they violated s. 7 of the Char­ter. The court also struck the corporate plaintiffs from the s. 6(2)(b) and s. 15(1) claims. The court struck the plaintiff Villetard's Eggs from the s. 15(1) claim. How­ever, the court was not convinced that there was no chance of suc­cess in the claims under s. 121 of the Con­stitution Act, 1867, the claims of the indi­vidual plaintiffs under s. 6(2)(b) of the Charter and the claims of the individual plaintiffs as egg producers in the North­west Territories under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 503

Mobility rights - Right to work in any province - The plaintiffs were a group of companies and individuals involved in commercial egg production and egg mar­keting in the Northwest Territories - They applied for a declaration that s. 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(e) of the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations and ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1) of the Cana­dian Egg Marketing Quota Regulations violated s. 6(2)(b) of the Charter on the ground they could not participate in the interprovincial marketing scheme because of their residence in the Northwest Terri­tories - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to strike this por­tion of the statement of claim because it was not obvious that the plaintiffs would be unsuccessful - See paragraphs 51 to 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 5656.1

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Marketing legislation - The plaintiffs were a group of companies and individuals involved in commercial egg production and egg marketing in the Northwest Territories - They applied for a declaration that s. 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(e) of the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations and ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1) of the Canadian Egg Marketing Quota Regulations violated s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that it was argu­able that the individual plain­tiffs as egg pro­ducers in the North­west Terri­tories were denied equality under the law by denial of opportunity to apply for or obtain a federal quota - See para­graphs 60 to 67.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application of - Persons protected - The plaintiffs were a group of companies and individuals involved in commercial egg production and egg marketing in the Northwest Territories - They applied for a declaration that s. 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(e) of the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations and ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1) of the Canadian Egg Marketing Quota Regulations violated s. 7 of the Charter - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held, inter alia, that purely economic interests such as those asserted were not protected by s. 7 - See para­graphs 58 to 59.

Civil Rights - Topic 8305

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application of - Persons protected - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8305 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - The plaintiffs were a group of companies and individuals involved in commercial egg production and egg marketing in the Northwest Terri­tories - They applied for a declaration that s. 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(e) of the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations and ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1) of the Canadian Egg Marketing Quota Regulations violated ss. 6(2)(b), 7 and 15(1) of the Charter - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the corporate plaintiffs had no standing to bring a Charter application - The court held that the individual plaintiffs could pursue the application although they were shareholders of the corporate defendants - The court declined to grant public interest standing to the corporations where the individual plaintiffs could pursue the ap­plication - See paragraphs 44 to 49.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3503

Marketing of agricultural products - Mar­keting legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 503 , Civil Rights - Topic 5656.1 and first Civil Rights - Topic 8305 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 3505

Marketing of agricultural products - Mar­keting legislation - Application - The plaintiffs were a group of companies and individuals involved in commercial egg production and egg marketing in the Northwest Territories - They applied for a declaration that s. 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, ss. 3, 4(1), 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(e) of the Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations and ss. 4(1)(a), 5(2), 6 and 7(1) of the Canadian Egg Marketing Quota Regulations did not apply to com­mercial egg producers in the North­west Territories - The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency applied to strike the statement of claim - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the impugned provisions applied to the whole of Canada including the Northwest Terri­tories - See paragraphs 26 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and National Anti-Poverty Organization v. Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735; 33 N.R. 304; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 8].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 13 C.R.R. 287; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 12 Admin. L.R. 16, refd to. [para. 8].

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 8].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Ltd. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

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; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 257, consd. [para. 20].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1912] A.C. 571; 3 D.L.R. 509 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association et al., [1971] S.C.R. 689; 19 D.L.R.(3d) 169, refd to. [para. 40].

Central Amusement (N.B.) Ltd. v. Atlantic Lottery Corp. et al. (1991), 115 N.B.R.(2d) 429; 291 A.P.R. 429 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Cabre Exploration Ltd. v. Arndt and Alberta (1988), 87 A.R. 149; 60 Alta. L.R.(2d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Parkdale Hotel Ltd. v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 190; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 19 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 48].

Wolff (Rudolf) & Co. v. Canada, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 695; 106 N.R. 1; 39 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

National Anti-Poverty Organization et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1989] 3 F.C. 684; 99 N.R. 181 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Canada (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) v. Central Cartage Co. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 F.C. 641; 109 N.R. 357 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Borowski v. Minister of Justice of Canada et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 588; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97; 24 C.P.C. 62; 24 C.R.(3d) 352; 12 Sask.R. 420; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 49].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 8 C.R.R. 193; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 54].

Black & Company v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; 93 N.R. 266; 96 A.R. 352, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Quesnel (1985), 12 O.A.C. 165; 53 O.R.(2d) 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Demaere v. Canada (1984), 52 N.R. 288; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 194 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Groupe Des Eleveurs de Volailles de l'Est de l'Ontario v. Canadian Chicken Mar­keting Agency (1984), 14 D.L.R.(4th) 151 (F.C.T.D.), dist. [para. 55].

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1986] 1 F.C. 274; 12 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), upheld (1986), 78 N.R. 30 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1987), 79 N.R. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Weyer v. Canada (1988), 83 N.R. 272 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1296; 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 8; 69 C.R.(3d) 97; 39 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 66].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Col­umbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Sheldon S., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 254; 110 N.R. 321; 41 O.A.C. 81; 77 C.R.(3d) 273; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 115; 49 C.R.R. 79, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. S.S. - see R. v. Sheldon S.

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Clearview Dairy Farm Inc., [1987] 4 W.W.R. 279 (B.C.C.A.), dist. [para. 67].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 6 [para. 51]; sect. 6(2)(b), sect. 7, sect. 15(1) [para. 16].

Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations - see Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act Regulations (Can.).

Canadian Egg Marketing Quota Regula­tions - see Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act Regulations (Can.).

Constitution Act, 1867, s. 121 [para. 16].

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act Regulations (Can.), Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations, sect. 3, sect. 4(1), sect. 7(1)(d), sect. 7(1)(e), sect. 8(a), sect. 9(1), sect. 9(2)(a), sect. 9(2)(b) [para. 14].

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act Regulations (Can.), Canadian Egg Mar­keting Quota Regula­tions, sect. 4(1)(a), sect. 5(2), sect. 6, sect. 7(1)(a), sect. 7(1)(b), sect. 7(1)(c) [para. 15].

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-4, sect. 16 [para. 13]; sect. 17, sect. 22, sect. 31 [para. 21]; sect. 23 [para. 13].

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 65, sect. 17, sect. 18, sect. 23, sect. 32 [para. 21].

Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act Proclamations (Can.), Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Proclamation, C.R.C. 1978, c. 646, sect. 2(1) [para. 30].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 50 [para. 3].

Federal Court Rules, rule 419(1)(a) [para. 8].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 35(1) [para. 36].

Rules of Court (B.C.), Supreme Court Rules, rule 19(24)(a) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Graham McLennan, for the plaintiffs;

James Smellie, for the defendant, Canadian Egg Marketing Agency;

Kirk N. Lambrecht, for the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen;

Eugene Meehan, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

McLennan Ross, Edmonton, Alberta, for the plaintiffs;

Osler, Hoskins & Harcourt, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant, Canadian Egg Marketing Agency;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant, Her Majesty the Queen;

Lang Michener, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This application was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 8, 1993, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 27, 1994, in Ottawa, Ontario.