Saquet v. ADM Agri-Industries Ltd., 2007 FC 667

• Judge: Heneghan, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 19, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2007 FC 667;(2007), 314 F.T.R. 111 (FC)

Saquet v. ADM Agri-Ind. Ltd. (2007), 314 F.T.R. 111 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.006

Sonja Saquet and Paul Saquet (appellants) v. ADM Agri-Industries Ltd. (respondent)

(T-1599-05; 2007 FC 667)

Indexed As: Saquet v. ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.

Federal Court

Heneghan, J.

June 21, 2007.

Summary:

In July 2003, the Saquets arranged for the sale of canola to ADM Agri-Industries Ltd. through an unlicensed grain broker owned and operated by Hodgson (Crop-Tech). The canola was delivered to ADM. ADM issued a grain receipt in the name Saquet. ADM subsequently issued a cash purchase ticket (CPT) to Saquet, representing payment for the grain. Saquet asked Hodgson to arrange for payment of the grain to be deferred until the next calendar year. ADM issued a new CPT payable to Hodgson personally. Hodgson then issued a post-dated cheque drawn on Crop-Tech's account to Saquet. When the cheque was deposited, it was returned because of lack of funds. Crop-Tech was insolvent. The Saquets did not receive payment for the quantity of grain that had been delivered in July 2003. The Saquets claimed to the Canadian Grain Commission, asserting that ADM had violated s. 61 of the Canada Grain Act by issuing the new payment to Hodgson and not to them or to one of them. The Commission rejected the claim. The Saquets appealed.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Agency - Topic 323

Creation of relations - Parties - Who constitutes an agent - In July 2003, the Saquets arranged for the sale of canola to ADM Agri-Industries Ltd. through an unlicensed grain broker owned and operated by Hodgson (Crop-Tech) - The canola was delivered to ADM - ADM issued a grain receipt in the name Saquet - ADM subsequently issued a cash purchase ticket (CPT) to Saquet, representing payment for the grain - Saquet asked Hodgson to arrange for payment of the grain to be deferred until the next calendar year - ADM issued a new CPT payable to Hodgson personally - Hodgson then issued a post-dated cheque drawn on Crop-Tech's account to Saquet - When the cheque was deposited, it was returned because of lack of funds - Crop-Tech was insolvent - The Saquets did not receive payment for the quantity of grain that had been delivered in July 2003 - The Saquets claimed to the Canadian Grain Commission, asserting that ADM had violated s. 61 of the Canada Grain Act by issuing the new payment to Hodgson and not to them or to one of them - The Commission rejected the claim, finding that Hodgson was acting as an agent for the Saquets and there was no violation of s. 61 - The Saquets appealed - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - The Commission's finding that Hodgson was an agent for the Saquets, with apparent authority to request payment from ADM, was reasonable - It was open to the Commission to find that Hodgson had acted within his authority as an agent given that the Saquets acknowledged that they had granted him some degree of authority and had not advised ADM that he had exceeded his authority in issuing a post-dated Crop-Tech cheque - Indeed, the Saquets raised no complaint about the delivery of payment to Hodgson and their receipt of a cheque from him until the cheque was refused payment on the basis of insufficient funds - Further, the Saquets did not submit evidence regarding any particular characteristics of agency relationships in the grain industry that would render the Commission's finding unreasonable.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3703

Marketing of agricultural products - Grain - Canadian grain commission - General (incl. jurisdiction) - [See Agency - Topic 323 ].

Cases Noticed:

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Feduk (2003), 232 Sask.R. 161; 294 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 15].

Pender Farms Ltd. v. Canadian Grain Commission (2004), 252 F.T.R. 136 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Fill-More Seeds Inc. v. Johnson (2004), 256 Sask.R. 58 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Fowler v. Hollins (1872), L.R. 7 Q.B. 616, refd to. [para. 26].

Scherer v. Paletta (1966), 57 D.L.R.(2d) 532 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

A. Bruun, for the applicants;

L.M. Stuhldreier, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Campbell, Marr LLP, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicants;

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson LLP, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 19, 2007, at Winnipeg, Manitoba, by Heneghan, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 21, 2007.