Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada (Attorney General), (1993) 112 Sask.R. 181 (QB)

• Judge: Scheibel, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 20, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1993), 112 Sask.R. 181 (QB)

Sask. Wheat Pool v. Can. (A.G.) (1993), 112 Sask.R. 181 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Manitoba Pool Elevators and The Alberta Wheat Pool (plaintiffs) v. Attorney General of Canada (defendant)

(Q.B. 1993 No. 2140)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. Canada (Attorney General)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Scheibel, J.

July 20, 1993.

Summary:

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, et al., applied for a determination of whether a federal order-in-council was valid. The order-in-council purported to allow persons other than the Canadian Wheat Board to export barley without permission. The Attor­ney General of Canada applied to strike out the statement of claim on the ground that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the order-in-council was valid.

Courts - Topic 5695

Provincial courts - Jurisdiction or powers - Re orders of the Governor-in-Council (Federal Cabinet) - A federal order-in-council purported to allow persons other than the Canadian Wheat Board to export barley without permission - The Attorney General of Canada submitted that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench lacked the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order-in-council - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that in such a case there was a presumption that it has concurrent juris­diction with the Federal Court of Canada - The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order-in-council (see paragraphs 5 to 35).

Statutes - Topic 5364.3

Operation and effect - Regulations - Validity, presumption of - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that there is a presumption "that regulations are not only deemed to remain intra vires but also to be formally coherent with the enabling statute" (see paragraph 54).

Statutes - Topic 5518

Operation and effect - Orders-in-council - Validity - A federal order-in-council pur­ported to allow persons other than the Canadian Wheat Board to export barley without permission - The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool submitted that the order-in-counsel was invalid on the ground that it was inconsistent with s. 47 of the Cana­dian Wheat Board Act (see paragraph 37) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench declared that the order-in-counsel was valid (see paragraphs 36 to 59).

Words and Phrases

Federal board, commission or other tribu­nal - Meaning of the phrase "federal board, commission or other tribunal" as found in s. 18 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that the definition of "federal board, commission or tribunal" in s. 2(1) of the Federal Court Act does not include the Crown or cabinet acting as its representative (see paragraphs 14 to 20).

Cases Noticed:

Canada Labour Relations Board et al. v. L'Anglais (Paul) Inc. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 147; 47 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 18].

Jabour v. Law Society of British Columbia et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 307; 43 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 18].

Bassett v. Canada et al. (1987), 53 Sask.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

National Anti-Poverty Organization et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1989] 1 F.C. 208; 21 F.T.R. 33; revd. [1989] 3 F.C. 684; 99 N.R. 181 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Williams v. Canada (Attorney General) (1983), 6 D.L.R.(4th) 329 (Ont. Div. Ct.), folld. [para. 19].

Minister of National Revenue v. Creative Shoes Ltd. (1972), 29 D.L.R.(3d) 89 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Dyson v. Attorney General, [1911] 1 K.B. 410 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1981] 1 W.W.R. 1 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Groupe des éleveurs de volailles de l'est de l'Ontario v. Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency (1984), 14 D.L.R.(4th) 151 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Waddell v. Canada (Governor-in-Council) (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 431 (B.C.S.C.), affd. 142 D.L.R. (3d) 177 (B.C.C.A.), folld. [para. 29].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General) (1989), 42 B.C.L.R. 327 (S.C.), folld. [para. 29].

Clark v. Canada (Attorney General) (1977), 81 D.L.R.(3d) 33 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Reference Re Validity of Regulations in Relation to Chemicals, [1943] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

Zamora, The, [1916] 2 A.C. 77, refd to. [para. 41].

Booth v. R. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 20, refd to. [para. 41].

Acadia (Municipal District) No. 34 v. Canadian National Railway (1984), 55 N.R. 127 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Badger v. Canada, [1991] 1 F.C. 191; 38 F.T.R. 431, affd. 146 N.R. 79 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Wheat Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-24, sect. 47 [para. 37]; sect. 61 [para. 45].

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 21 [para. 13].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 2(1) [para. 17]; sect. 17(1), sect. 18(1) [para. 14].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 31(4) [para. 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 247 and 326 [para. 41].

Counsel:

A.J. Beke, Q.C., and J. Nugent, for the plaintiffs;

Mark R. Kindrachuk, for the defendant.

This case was heard before Scheibel, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on July 20, 1993.