Pork Producers Marketing Board (Alta.) et al. v. Swift Canadian Co. et al., (1981) 33 A.R. 541 (QB)

• Judge: Dea, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 26, 1981
• Citations: (1981), 33 A.R. 541 (QB)

Pork Producers Mkt. Bd. v. Swift Cdn. (1981), 33 A.R. 541 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board and Myziuk et al. on behalf of all persons who have produced hogs for slaughter in the Province of Alberta since the inception of the Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Plan, being Alberta Regulation 195/68, as amended, and who have marketed such hogs through the Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board v. Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., Canada Packers Inc., Burns Foods Limited, Fletcher's Fine Foods Ltd., Fletcher's Limited, Fletcher's (Alberta) Limited, Intercontinental Packers Ltd., Burns Meats Ltd., Gainers Foods Ltd., Cummings, Robertson and Telford

(No. 8003-05910)

Indexed As: Pork Producers Marketing Board (Alta.) et al. v. Swift Canadian Co. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Dea, J.

October 26, 1981.

Summary:

The Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board and several pork producers on behalf of all the Alberta pork producers brought an action against several pork processors for damages for conspiring to unduly lessen competition in the pork industry. The defendants applied to strike out portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim on the primary ground that a representative action was inappropriate.

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

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals - Class or representative actions - General principles - Several Alberta pork producers on behalf of all Alberta pork producers, who were required to market hogs through the Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board, brought an action against several pork processors for damages for conspiracy to unduly lessen competition in the pork industry - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in ruling that the representative action was appropriate in the circumstances thoroughly discussed and reviewed the principles applicable to class or representative actions - See paragraphs 7 to 37 and 48 to 49.

Practice - Topic 5652

Judgments - Declaratory judgments - When available - General - The Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board and several pork producers on behalf of all Alberta pork producers required to market through the Board brought an action against pork processors for conspiracy to unduly lessen competition in the industry - The Board claimed only a declaration respecting the defendants' alleged interference with the performance of the Board's statutory duties - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Board's action for a declaration was proper, notwithstanding that no other relief was claimed by the Board - See paragraphs 38 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Bedford v. Ellis, [1901] A.C. 1, appld. [para. 8].

Shaw et al. v. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, [1973] 4 W.W.R. 39, appld. [para. 9].

Farnham v. Fingold, [1973] 2 O.R. 132, appld. [para. 9].

Naken et al. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. (1978), 92 D.L.R.(3d) 100, appld. [para. 9].

Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, [1901] A.C. 426, appld. [para. 12].

Markt and Co. Ltd. v. Knight Steamship Company Ltd., [1910] 2 K.B. 1021, dist. [para. 23].

Stephenson v. Air Canada (1979), 103 D.L.R.(3d) 13, dist. [para. 23].

Goodfellow v. Knight (1977), 5 A.R. 573; 2 Alta. L.R.(2d) 17, dist. [para. 23].

Bamber v. Bank of Nova Scotia, [1943] 2 W.W.R. 529, refd to. [para. 37].

Ruislip-Northwood U.D.C. v. Lee, 145 L.T. 208, refd to. [para. 41].

Bedford Service Commission et al. v. Attorney General for Nova Scotia (1976), 18 N.S.R.(2d) 155; 20 A.P.R. 155, refd to. [para. 41].

Bedford Service Commission v. Attorney General for Nova Scotia, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 269; 14 N.R. 413; 19 N.S.R.(2d) 310; 24 A.P.R. 310, refd to. [para. 41].

Hanson v. Radcliffe U.D.C., [1922] 2 Ch. 490, appld. [paras. 44, 45].

Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v. British Bank for Foreign Trade, [1921] 2 A.C. 438, refd to. [para. 44].

Kent Coal v. Northwestern Utilities Ltd., [1936] 2 W.W.R. 393, refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. et al. v. Building Material, Construction & Fuel Truck Drivers Union, Local 213, International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al. (1975), 60 D.L.R.(3d) 249, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Interpretation Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 181, sect. 14(a) [para. 41].

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 193, sect. 32(p) [para. 43].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 42 [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (2nd Ed.), vol. 4, p. 417 [para. 40].

Odgers on Pleading and Practice (15th Ed.), p. 180 [para. 34].

Counsel:

A.T. Cooke, Q.C., H.I. Shandling, D.N. Jardine and Barry M. King, for the plaintiffs;

D.R. Thomas and B. Zalmanowitz, for the defendant Canada Packers;

Hugh J.D. McPhail, for the defendant Swift Canadian Co. & D.A. Cummings;

R.K. Laing, for the defendant Burns Companies;

Thomas H. Ferguson and W.T. Malloy, for the defendant Intercontinental Packers;

D. Pelkie, for the defendant Bruce Robertson;

M.G. Stevens-Guille, for the defendant Gainers Foods & R.C. Telford;

William G. Chipman, Q.C., on Demand of Notice for the defendants Fletchers Food Companies.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before DEA, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on October 26, 1981: