Date: 20010126
Docket: T-1922-99
Ottawa, Ontario, January 26, 2001
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
ALIMENTS DORCHESTER INC., now known
as EXCELDOR COOPÉRATIVE AVICOLE
Plaintiff
- and -
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010126
Docket: T-1922-99
Between:
ALIMENTS DORCHESTER INC., now known
as EXCELDOR COOPÉRATIVE AVICOLE
Plaintiff
- and -
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] The instant application for judicial review is from two decisions by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade ("the Department"). The first decision, made on July 29, 1999, had the effect of refusing to allocate Exceldor Coopérative Avicole ("Exceldor") a share of the chicken tariff quota ("the TQ") for 1999, which is allocated to chicken processors whose products do not appear on the "Import Control List" ("ICL"), in accordance with Notice to Importers No. 577 of November 9, 1998. The second decision, made on January 26, 2000, had the effect of denying Exceldor a share in the chicken TQ for 2000, which is allocated to chicken processors whose products do not appear on the ICL, in accordance to Notice to Importers No. 593 of October 29, 1999.
[2] The plaintiff maintained that it was entitled to these import quotas requested by Exceldor in view of the terms of s. 2(1)(b) of Allocation Method Order (Chicken and Chicken Products), SOR/96-388 (July 15, 1996) ("the Order"). That Order was authorized by s. 6.2(2)(a) of the Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19.
[3] It will be useful to set out here the following relevant provisions of this Act and the Order:
Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-19:
| 6.2 (1) Where any goods have been included on the Import Control List for the purpose of implementing an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment, the Minister may determine import access quantities, or the basis for calculating them, for the purposes of subsection (2) and section 8.3 of this Act and for the purpose of the Customs Tariff.
|
|
6.2 (1) En cas d'inscription de marchandises sur la liste des marchandises d'importation contrôlée aux fins de la mise en oeuvre d'un accord ou d'un engagement intergouvernemental, le ministre peut, pour l'application du paragraphe (2) de l'article 8.3 et tu Tarif des douanes, déterminer la quantité de marchandises visée par le régime d'accès en cause, ou établir des critères à cet effet.
|
| |
|
|
| (2) Where the Minister has determined a quantity of goods under subsection (1), the Minister may
(1) by order, establish a method for allocating the quantity to residents of Canada who apply for an allocation; and
(2) issue an allocation to any resident of Canada who applies for the allocation, subject to the regulations and any terms and conditions the Minister may specify in the allocation.
|
|
(2) Lorsqu'il a déterminé la quantité des marchandises en application du paragraphe (1), le ministre peut :
1) établir, par arrêté, une méthode pour allouer des quotas aux résidents du Canada qui en font la demande;
|
| |
|
|
| délivrer une autorisation d'importation à tout résident du Canada qui en fait la demande, sous réserve des conditions qui y sont énoncées et des règlements. (3) The Minister may consent to the transfer of an import allocation from one resident of Canada to another.
|
|
(3) Le ministre peut autoriser le transfert à un autre résident de l'autorisation d'importation.
|
| |
|
|
Allocation Method Order (Chicken and Chicken Products), SOR/96-388:
| 1. The following definitions apply in this Order.
|
|
1. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent arrêté.
|
| |
|
|
| . . . . .
|
|
. . . . .
|
| |
|
|
| "process" means to slaughter chicken, to cut up eviscerated chicken or to further process. It includes to manufacture products such as patties, nuggets, fingers, rolls or roasts produced from chicken meat.
(transformer)
|
|
« période de référence » Période de douze mois commençant le 1er septembre et se terminant le 31 août qui précède l'année civile à laquelle s'applique l'autorisation d'importation. (reference period)
|
| |
|
|
| "processor" means a processor who has processed at least 220,000 kg of chicken and chicken products at its own or rented facilities during the reference period.
(transformateur)
|
|
« transformateur » Transformateur qui a transformé au moins 220 000 kg de volaille et de produits de volaille dans ses propres installations ou des installations louées, durant la période de référence. (processor)
|
| |
|
|
| "reference period" in respect of an import allocation, means the 12-month period beginning on the September 1 and ending on the August 31 before the calendar year to which the import allocation applies.
(période de référence)
|
|
« transformer » Abattre la volaille, découper la volaille éviscérée ou la transformer en produits de second cycle, y compris la fabrication de produits tels que les petits pâtés, les croquettes, les doigts, les roulés ou les rôtis fabriqués avec de la chair de volaille. (process)
|
| |
|
|
| . . . . .
|
|
. . . . .
|
| |
|
|
| 2. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the method for allocating the import access quantity for chicken and chicken products that may be imported into Canada in a calendar year is as follows:
. . . . .
(b) an applicant who is a processor of chicken-based products not on the Import Control List shall receive a share of the import access quantity that is equal, on an eviscerated chicken equivalent basis, to the amount of chicken and chicken products the processor used in producing those chicken-based products during the reference period;
. . . . .
(f) an applicant who is a processor shall receive a share of 70% of the remaining portion of the import access quantity on a market-share basis after distribution to the applicants referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d), which shall not be less than 60,686 kg; and . . .
|
|
2. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes(2) et (3), la méthode d'allocation des quotas quant à la quantité de volaille et de produits de volaille visée par le régime d'accès en cause qui peut être importée au Canada au cours d'une année civile est la suivante :
. . . . .
b) le requérant qui est un transformateur de second cycle de produits de volaille non inscrits sur la Liste des marchandises d'importation contrôlée reçoit un quota égal, en équivalent de volaille éviscérée, à la quantité de volaille et de produits de volaille qui a été nécessaire à la production de ces marchandises durant la période de référence;
. . . . .
f) le requérant qui est un transformateur reçoit, sur les 70 % du solde de la quantité visée par le régime d'accès, après distribution aux requérants visés aux alinéas a) à d), une part non inférieure à 60 686 kg et proportionnelle à sa part de marché . . .
|
| |
|
|
[4] In its first application for an import quota on December 15, 1998 (for 1999), Exceldor informed the Department that Aliments Dorchester Inc. had ceased operations on January 31, 1999. In giving this information Exceldor was complying with the "Application Instructions" contained in Appendix 1 of Notice to Importers No. 577, published pursuant to the Export and Import Permits Act. Section 2 of Appendix 1 contains the following instruction:
Companies must state whether they are producing the product at the time of application.
[5] Also in the application of December 15, 1998, Exceldor further stated:
[TRANSLATION]
. . . Exceldor, Coopérative Avicole resulted from the merger of the cooperatives La Coopérative de Dorchester and Société Coopérative Avicole Régionale. These cooperatives held and still hold 100% of the shares in Aliments Dorchester Inc.
[6] Aliments Dorchester Inc. in fact ceased operations as announced on January 31, 1999. The parties also admitted that at all relevant times Exceldor, though a processor of chicken and chicken products, was never "a processor of chicken-based products not on the Import Control List" within the meaning of s. 2(1)(b) of the Order.
[7] This essentially is the factual background against which the arguments of the parties at bar must be considered.
[8] On the one hand, the plaintiff maintained that for the Department to be obliged to award Exceldor the import quotas sought it was sufficient to establish, as was done, that Aliments Dorchester Inc. was a processor which in each of the two applicable reference periods, namely those from September 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998 and September 1, 1998 to August 31, 1999, had used at least 220,000 kg of chicken and chicken products as input in producing products not appearing on the Import Control List.
[9] On the other hand, the defendant argued that the definitions of "reference period", "processor" and "process" contained in s. 1 of the Order are not, as the plaintiff maintained, relevant in interpreting the provision relied on by the latter, namely s. 2(1)(b) of that Order. In particular, the defendant contended that the Court cannot disregard the presence of the word "is" in the latter provision, a word which adds a condition not contained in the definition of "processor", namely the need for continuing production at the time of the application. The defendant further submitted that if the person requesting import quotas has ceased production before the requested quotas are allocated, it clearly cannot be entitled to them.
[10] I think that in order to dispose of this matter it is useful and necessary to look at the applicable legislative background. Section 2(1)(b), on which the plaintiff relied, is part of a method of allocating quotas contained in an Order adopted pursuant to s. 6.2(2)(a) of the Export and Import Permits Act. Subsection (3) of the latter section gives the Minister the discretionary power to consent to the transfer of an import allocation from one resident of Canada to another. This means that the Minister's refusal to consent to such a transfer is unimpeachable if the Minister exercised his statutory discretion in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and that his decision has not been based upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose of the statute conferring the authority (see [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2">Maple Lodge Farms v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, at 7 and 8).
[11] Section 2(1)(f) of the Order also sets out a different method of allocating quotas for an ordinary processor who is not described as a processor of chicken-based products. This means that an ordinary processor who is not a processor of chicken-based products would clearly not be entitled to the import quotas mentioned in s. 2(1)(b) of the Order.
[12] As it appears from the facts of the case at bar that the applicant for the import quotas for 1999 and 2000 is Exceldor, a processor which was not and is not, directly or indirectly, a processor of chicken-based products within the meaning of s. 2(1)(b) of the Order, I consider that this is by itself a sufficient reason for dismissing the application for judicial review.
[13] Further, as Aliments Dorchester Inc. is a separate artificial person and ceased all production on January 31, 1999, the import quotas requested for the remainder of 1999 and for 2000 could not be used without being transferred, with the consent of the "Minister", by or for Aliments Dorchester Inc. to another qualified "resident", as provided in s. 6.2(3) of the Export and Import Permits Act. As such a transfer has never been requested and in any case has never been given the consent of the Minister responsible, the import quotas requested by Exceldor could not be allocated. Moreover, allowing such a transfer when Exceldor was not and is not in any way a processor of chicken-based products would have been contrary to the Order, which in s. 2(1)(f) provides a different method of quota allocation for other "processors".
[14] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 26, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-1922-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALIMENTS DORCHESTER INC., now known
as EXCELDOR COOPÉRATIVE AVICOLE,
v. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 9, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: January 26, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Alain Robitaille for the plaintiff
Véronique Sinclair-Desgagné
Louis Sébastien for the defendant
Jean-Pierre Noiseux
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kronström, Desjardins for the plaintiff
Ste-Foy, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content