Wayvel Farms Ltd. v. Pork Producers Marketing Board (Alta.), Alberta and Fletcher's Ltd., (1985) 63 A.R. 189 (QB)

• Judge: Forsyth, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 09, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 63 A.R. 189 (QB)

Wayvel Farms Ltd. v. Pork Producers (1985), 63 A.R. 189 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Wayvel Farms Ltd. v. Pork Producers Marketing Board (Alta.), Alberta and Fletcher's Limited

(No. 8401-27202)

Indexed As: Wayvel Farms Ltd. v. Pork Producers Marketing Board (Alta.), Alberta and Fletcher's Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Forsyth, J.

September 9, 1985.

Summary:

The Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board purchased all the shares of Fletcher's, a major hog slaughter facility. One method of financing the purchase was to increase the service fee charged to hog producers from $1.00/hog to $3.00/hog. A hog producer applied for declarations that certain Regulations under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act authorizing the Board's actions were ultra vires. The producer also claimed that the acquisition of the facility, the increase in the service fee and the loans by the board to Fletcher's were ultra vires the Board.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. The court held that the challenged Regulations were intra vires and that the Board's actions were authorized by the Regulations.

Statutes - Topic 5362

Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - Overlapping powers - Section 26(1)(a) of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, a general provision, empowered the Lieutenant Governor in Council to enact regulations respecting service charges to hog producers - Section 13 of the Act specifically empowered the Alberta Agricultural Products Marketing Council to also fix service charges - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the specific power in s. 13 did not preclude the fixing of service charges under s. 26(1)(a), because there was no conflict in the overlapping of powers where the power under s. 13 was not exhaustive and exclusive - See paragraphs 28 to 39.

Statutes - Topic 5367

Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - Ultra vires - Whether purpose authorized by statute - Regulations under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act authorized the Pork Producers Marketing Board to purchase a hog slaughtering facility and to increase the service charge to hog producers to help finance the purchase - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Regulations were not ultra vires as being contrary to the purpose and intent of the enabling Act - See paragraphs 7 to 27.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3765

Marketing of agricultural products - Hogs - Marketing or service fees - Validity of - Regulation 348/80 under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act raised the marketing fee charged to hog producers to help finance the Board's purchase of a hog slaughtering facility - Regulation 348/80 was passed several months before the Regulation authorizing the purchase - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the Regulations were intra vires; that the Board had the power to increase the fees for this purpose - See paragraphs 44 to 53.

Trade Regulation - Topic 3766

Marketing of agricultural products - Hogs - Powers of board - General - The Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board purchased a hog slaughtering facility, obtained loans for the facility and also loaned money directly to the facility - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the powers exercised by the Board were authorized by valid Regulations passed under the enabling Act; that the Regulations in question were not contrary to the purpose and intent of the enabling Act - See paragraphs 54 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

Heppner v. Minister of Environment of Alberta and Attorney General of Alberta (1977), 6 A.R. 154; 4 Alta. L.R. 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

New Brunswick Broilers Growers Marketing Board v. Sussex Poultry Limited (1970), 2 N.B.R.(2d) 873 (N.B.C.A.), dist. [para. 36].

Agricultural Products Marketing Act, Reference Re (1978), 19 N.R. 361; 84 D.L.R.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Parklane Private Hospital v. City of Vancouver, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 47; 2 N.R. 305, refd to. [para. 44].

Husted v. Husted (1979), 19 A.R. 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Interpretation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-7, sect. 7 [para. 45].

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-5, sect. 1(a), sect. 1(f) [para. 15]; sect. 1(i) [para. 18]; sect. 4(1) [para. 29]; sect. 6 [para. 9]; sect. 7(1)(a), sect. 7(1)(b), sect. 7(2) [para. 10]; sect. 13(1)(a)(vii), sect. 13(1)(a)(xi) [para. 29]; sect. 26(1)(a), sect. 26(2)(d) [para. 11].

Marketing of Agricultural Products Regulations, Reg. 48/78, sect. 7(1)(g) [para. 57]; Reg. 99/81, sect. 2 [para. 7]; sect. 22(1) [para. 60]; Reg. 140/81, sect. 10(1) [para. 56]; Reg. 195/68, sect. 3(1), sect. 3(2) [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 73 [para. 14]; 235 [para. 38].

Counsel:

T.H. Ferguson, J. Levo and D.L. Pollock, for the applicant;

J.C. Major, Q.C., for Fletcher's Limited;

A.T. Cook, Q.C., and D.N. Jardine, for Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board;

R.C. Maybank and A.P. Hnatiuk, for the Attorney General for Alberta.

This application was heard before Forsyth, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on September 9, 1985.