Date: 20120217
Dockets: A-470-11
A-471-11
Citation: 2012 FCA
56
Present: BLAIS C.J.
BETWEEN: A-470-11
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND
AGRI-FOOD IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Appellants
and
FRIENDS OF THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD,
HAROLD BELL, DANIEL GAUTHIER, KEN
ESHPETER,
TERRY BOEHM, LYLE SIMONSON, LYNN
JACOBSON,
ROBERT HORNE, WILF HARDER, LAURENCE
NICHOLSON,
LARRY BOHDANOVICH, KEITH RYAN, ANDY
BAKER,
NORBERT VAN DEYNZE, WILLIAM ACHESON,
LUC LABOSSIERE, WILLIAM NICHOLSON, RENE
SAQUET, and
THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Respondents
BETWEEN: A-471-11
MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Appellant
and
THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD,
ALLEN OBERG, ROD FLAMAN, CAM GOFF,
KYLE KORNEYCHUK, JOHN SANDBORN,
BILL TOEWS, STEWART WELLS and BILL WOODS
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance
of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa,
Ontario, on February
17, 2012
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: CHIEF
JUSTICE BLAIS
Date: 20120217
Dockets: A-470-11
A-471-11
Citation: 2012 FCA 56
Present: BLAIS
C.J.
BETWEEN: A-470-11
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND
AGRI-FOOD IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Appellants
and
FRIENDS OF THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD,
HAROLD BELL, DANIEL GAUTHIER, KEN
ESHPETER,
TERRY BOEHM, LYLE SIMONSON, LYNN JACOBSON,
ROBERT HORNE, WILF HARDER, LAURENCE
NICHOLSON,
LARRY BOHDANOVICH, KEITH RYAN, ANDY
BAKER,
NORBERT VAN DEYNZE, WILLIAM ACHESON,
LUC LABOSSIERE, WILLIAM NICHOLSON, RENE
SAQUET, and
THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Respondents
BETWEEN: A-471-11
MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND
AGRI-FOOD
IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Appellant
and
THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD,
ALLEN OBERG, ROD FLAMAN, CAM GOFF,
KYLE KORNEYCHUK, JOHN SANDBORN,
BILL TOEWS, STEWART WELLS and BILL WOODS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
BLAIS C.J.
[1]
This is a
motion by the appellants seeking an order expediting the consolidated appeals.
[2]
The appeals
in court file A-470-11 and in court file A-471-11 have been consolidated by an
order of this Court dated February 14, 2012.
RELEVANT FACTS
[3]
Following
an application for judicial review, the Federal Court declared by an order
dated December 7, 2011, that the Minister had breached his statutory duty under
section 47(1) of the Act.
[4]
Two days
later, on December 9, 2011, the appellants filed two notices of appeal (court
files A-470-11 and A-471-11).
[5]
On
December 14, 2011, five days after the filing of the notices of appeal, the
Canadian Wheat Board and eight individuals who are the current directors of the
Canadian Wheat Board filed a statement of claim in the Manitoba Court of
Queen’s Bench against the defendant Attorney General of Canada.
[6]
This
action filed on December 14, 2011, is based on the declaration issued by the
Federal Court in its December 7, 2011, order.
[7]
There is
also a motion for an interlocutory injunction seeking to suspend the impugned
Act filed in the Manitoba proceedings.
[8]
In his
decision of December 7, 2011, the Federal Court judge recognized that any delay
would be prejudicial to the public interest. Accordingly, he decided to issue
his reasons for orders and orders the day following the hearing and stated that
making both orders “available simultaneously in both official languages would
occasion a delay prejudicial to the public interest”. [my emphasis]
ANALYSIS
[9]
First of
all, even if the usual rules applying in this case would be that a motion to
expedite be brought before the Court at the same time as the requisition for
hearing, some particular circumstances as the one we have in this case could
justify expediting as soon as we can to clarify the situation.
[10]
The
respondents have decided to initiate litigation with an application for
judicial review in the Federal Court. They succeeded, as evidenced by the
decision rendered by the Federal Court on December 7, 2011, which declared that
the Minister had breached his statutory duty under subsection 47(1) of the Act.
[11]
The
Minister immediately responded that he will not withdraw or amend the bill
until the case is fully litigated in appeal.
[12]
In fact,
two notices of appeal were filed on December 9, 2011, and five days later, Bill
C-18 received Royal Assent on December 15, 2011.
[13]
It is not
surprising that the Minister disagrees with the respondents’ position and appeals
from the Federal Court’s decision.
[14]
The respondents
decided to open a new front in filing a statement of claim on December 14, 2011,
with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba.
[15]
It is in the
interest of justice to have a certain level of certainty in the area of
national and international trade of grains.
[16]
In this
particular case, we are facing a very unusual situation: Bill C-18 was passed
by Parliament and received Royal Assent. A few days before, a Federal Court order
found that the Minister had breached his statutory duty under subsection 47(1)
of the Act by introducing Bill C-18 in the House of Commons without proper consultation.
At paragraph 8, the Federal Court judge assumed that the validity of Bill C-18
was not the issue. Rather, he wrote, the issue was whether the Minister acted
pursuant to subsection 47(1) of the Act.
[17]
Without
commenting on the merits of the decision, I am of the opinion that the
Parliament and the Canadians are entitled to know what the law of the land is
at this time.
[18]
Therefore,
it appears to me that the interest of justice favours the expedition of the
hearing.
[19]
A decision
of this Court, notwithstanding the outcome, would bring more certainty, clarity
and stability for all stakeholders; in short, the sooner the better.
[20]
I have no
hesitation to conclude that the appellants successfully convinced this Court
that the expedition of the consolidated appeal will promote the interest of
justice and, particularly, the interest of the parties involved in this case.
[21]
This will
not prejudice the respondents in any way.
[22]
Therefore,
this Court orders that the hearing of these appeals be expedited. The parties
shall serve and file their documents pursuant to the Federal Court Rules,
and the requisition for hearing shall be filed as soon as the file is ready to
be heard. The appeals will be heard as soon as possible after the filing of the
requisition for hearing; Costs in favour of the appellants.
“Pierre Blais”
Email this Content