Satara Farms Inc. et al. v. Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., 2006 SKQB 229

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 15, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2006 SKQB 229;(2006), 280 Sask.R. 44 (QB)

Satara Farms v. Parrish & Heimbecker (2006), 280 Sask.R. 44 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.065

Satara Farms Inc., Gregg Anderson, Dianne Anderson, Brian Watier, Debbie Watier, David Palmer, Marcia Palmer and Dennis Harasym (plaintiffs) v. Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, operating as New-Life Feeds (defendant)

(2001 Q.B. No. 1791; 2006 SKQB 229)

Indexed As: Satara Farms Inc. et al. v. Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

R.S. Smith, J.

May 15, 2006.

Summary:

In 2000, each of the plaintiff ostrich farmers purchased ostrich feed manufactured and distributed by the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the feed was not fit for its purpose as it was rejected by the young ostrich chicks. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages for their losses, grounding their claim in negligence, contract and breach of statute.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench found that the defendant breached the statutory warranties in the Consumer Protection Act and the implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality under s. 16 of the Sale of Goods Act. The court also found that the defendant was liable to the plaintiffs in tort. The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the loss of their chicks in 2000, but declined to award damages for losses claimed for subsequent years. The court also declined to award exemplary damages or damages for mental stress.

Consumer Law - Topic 1663

Sale of goods - Manufacturers' warranties (incl. extended warranties) - Breach of warranty - In 2000, each of the plaintiff ostrich farmers purchased ostrich feed manufactured and distributed by the defendant - The plaintiffs alleged that the feed was not fit for its purpose as it was rejected by the young ostrich chicks - The plaintiffs sued the defendant for their losses - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs demonstrated that the defendant's feed was of such poor quality that the presumption of breach of warranties contained in s. 51(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) was engaged - It was reasonable to infer from the evidence that a problem in the preparation of at least some of the feed sold in 2000 negatively affected its palatability - It followed that the defendant was in breach of the statutory warranties under the CPA - The court also concluded that the defendant was in breach of the implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality under s. 16 of the Sale of Goods Act - Further, the court's finding that an error was made by the defendant in the preparation of the feed, resulting in loss to the plaintiffs, also grounded an action against the defendant in tort - See paragraphs 45 to 48 and 103.

Consumer Law - Topic 1683

Sale of goods - Statutory warranties - Burden of proof - The plaintiff ostrich farmers purchased ostrich feed manufactured and distributed by the defendant - The plaintiffs alleged that the feed was not fit for its purpose as it was rejected by the young ostrich chicks, which resulted in losses to the plaintiffs - The plaintiffs sued the defendant, grounding their claim in negligence, contract and breach of statute - The plaintiffs argued that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) applied and that s. 51 of the CPA operated to shift the burden to the defendant in a manner similar to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "I would not cast the issue in the same fashion as the plaintiffs, but do conclude that in the context of s. 51 of the CPA, once a plaintiff establishes the poor quality of a consumer product, a breach of warranty by the manufacturer is presumed if, on the facts, such a presumption is reasonable. Therefore, the court must ask itself whether the plaintiff has provided clear evidence of poor quality. If there is such evidence, the onus shifts to the manufacturer who has an opportunity to provide an exculpatory explanation" - See paragraphs 43 to 44.

Consumer Law - Topic 1804

Sale of goods - Breach - Remedies of buyer - Damages (incl. punitive damages) - In 2000, the plaintiff ostrich farmers purchased ostrich feed manufactured and distributed by the defendant - The plaintiffs alleged that the feed was not fit for its purpose as it was rejected by the young ostrich chicks, resulting in losses to the plaintiffs - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant was in breach of the statutory warranties under the Consumer Protection Act and the implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality under s. 16 of the Sale of Goods Act and that it was also liable to the plaintiffs in tort - The court calculated the plaintiffs' damages based on the number of birds hatched in 2000 (reduced by a normal mortality adjustment) multiplied by a net revenue of $150 per ostrich - The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for losses for the five years following 2000 - Since there was no suggestion that the problems with the defendant's feed had any impact on the plaintiffs' breeding hens, a failed hatch in 2000 had no causal link to a hatch in 2001 - The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claim for damages for having to leave the ostrich farming business - The court could not find that the plaintiffs would have experienced continuing success but for the failure of the 2000 hatch - See paragraphs 49 to 86.

Consumer Law - Topic 1804

Sale of goods - Breach - Remedies of buyer - Damages (incl. punitive damages) - In 2000, the plaintiff ostrich farmers purchased ostrich feed manufactured and distributed by the defendant - The plaintiffs alleged that the feed was not fit for its purpose as it was rejected by the young ostrich chicks, resulting in losses to the plaintiffs - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant was in breach of the statutory warranties under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the implied conditions of fitness for purpose and merchantable quality under s. 16 of the Sale of Goods Act and that it was also liable to the plaintiffs in tort - The court calculated the plaintiffs' damages - The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for exemplary damages under the CPA - While a plaintiff had a lower bar to clear in seeking exemplary damages under the CPA than would be necessary for punitive damages under common law rules, exemplary damages under the CPA were not triggered simply because the defendant was in breach of a statutory warranty - There had to be a "wilful" violation of the legislation - The defendant's conduct did not demonstrate a wilful violation of its obligations under the CPA - See paragraphs 87 to 96.

Damages - Topic 1306.2

Exemplary or punitive damages - Consumer protection legislation - [See second Consumer Law - Topic 1804 ].

Damages - Topic 1532

General damages - Elements of general damages - Mental distress or emotional upset - The plaintiff ostrich farmers purchased ostrich feed manufactured and distributed by the defendant - The plaintiffs alleged that the feed was not fit for its purpose as it was rejected by the young ostrich chicks, resulting in losses to the plaintiffs - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant was in breach of certain statutory warranties and that it was also liable to the plaintiffs in tort - The court calculated the plaintiffs' damages - The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim for damages for stress, anxiety and frustration arising out of the traumatic deaths suffered by the chicks - Chick mortality was a normal hazard of ostrich farming - Further, the fact that a plaintiff was distressed did not, in and of itself, give rise to non-compensatory damages - There were persuasive reasons to limit the circumstances in which damages would be awarded for mental illness, mental stress, and the like in the context of a commercial transaction - The finding of tortious liability against the defendant also did not give rise to a claim for damages for mental distress - The distress suffered by the plaintiffs was not a recognized psychological illness, nor did it constitute "nervous shock" beyond the understandable emotional upset or anxiety - See paragraphs 97 to 111.

Damages - Topic 5834

Contracts - Sale of goods - Breach by seller - Breach of warranty - [See Consumer Law - Topic 1663 ].

Sale of Goods - Topic 4106

Conditions and warranties - Implied or statutory terms as to quality or fitness - Fitness or suitability of goods - [See Consumer Law - Topic 1663 ].

Sale of Goods - Topic 4108

Conditions and warranties - Implied or statutory terms as to quality or fitness - Merchantable quality - [See Consumer Law - Topic 1663 ].

Sale of Goods - Topic 6504

Breach - Remedies of buyer - Measure of damages for breach of warranty - [See both Consumer Law - Topic 1804 ].

Torts - Topic 4327

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manufacturers - Defective goods - [See Consumer Law - Topic 1663 ].

Torts - Topic 4340

Suppliers of goods - Negligence - Manufacturers - Damages - Measure of - [See both Consumer Law - Topic 1804 ].

Cases Noticed:

McHugh v. Reynolds Estrusion Co. et al. (1974), 7 O.R.(2d) 336 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Fontaine v. Loewen Estate, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 424; 223 N.R. 161; 103 B.C.A.C. 118; 169 W.A.C. 118, refd to. [para. 32].

Kolibab v. Tenneco Canada Inc. (1996), 147 Sask.R. 67 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 42].

Wood v. Grand Valley Railway Co. (1915), 51 S.C.R. 283, refd to. [para. 52].

Penvidic Contracting Co. v. International Nickel Co. of Canada Ltd., [1976] 1 S.C.R. 267; 4 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Canlin Ltd. v. Thiokol Fibres Canada Ltd. (1983), 142 D.L.R.(3d) 450 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Fisons Western Corp. (1988), 49 D.L.R.(4th) 205 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Eggen Seed Farms Ltd. v. Alberta Wheat Pool (1997), 205 A.R. 77 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 74].

Prebushewski v. Dodge City Auto (1984) Ltd. et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 649; 333 N.R. 201; 262 Sask.R. 281; 347 W.A.C. 281; 2005 SCC 28, consd. [para. 89].

Pilon v. Peugeot Canada Ltd. (1980), 114 D.L.R.(3d) 378 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 98].

King v. BioChem Therapeutic Inc., [2001] Q.J. No. 2166 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 98].

Fowler v. Maritime Life Assurance Co. (2002), 216 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 132; 647 A.P.R. 132 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 98].

Wharton v. Harris (Tom) Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Ltd., [2002] 3 W.W.R. 629; 163 B.C.A.C. 122; 267 W.A.C. 122; 2002 BCCA 78, consd. [para. 100].

Turczinski v. Dupont Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd. et al. (2004), 191 O.A.C. 350; 246 D.L.R.(4th) 95 (C.A.), consd. [para. 100].

Knife v. Charles (2005), 272 Sask.R. 111; 2005 SKQB 516, consd. [para. 109].

Statutes Noticed:

Consumer Protection Act, S.S. 1996, c. C-30.1, sect. 65 [para. 88].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Burrows, Andrew, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract (3rd Ed. 2004), pp. 337 [para. 104]; 338 [paras. 104, 108].

Klar, Lewis N., Linden, Allan M., Cherniak, Earl A., and Kryworuk, Peter W., Remedies in Tort (1987) (Looseleaf), vol. 2., c. 16, para. 218 [para. 106].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Damages (Looseleaf Ed.), p. 13-1 [para. 51].

Counsel:

G.J. Scharfstein, Q.C., and K.L. Kaip, for the plaintiffs;

W.P. Langen, for the defendant.

This action was heard before R.S. Smith. J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on May 15, 2006.