Date: 20010215
Docket: A-279-00
2001 FCA 22
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN BOYKO and JEAN BOYKO
Appellants
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
REPRESENTING THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Respondent
Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Thursday, February 15, 2001
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
Thursday, February 15, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 20010215
Docket: A-279-00
2001 FCA 22
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
BETWEEN:
JOHN BOYKO and JEAN BOYKO
Appellants
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
REPRESENTING THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
on Thursday, February 15, 2001)
DÉCARY J.A.
The appellants are, for all practical purposes, seeking a declaration that the Point of Sale Guidelines adopted in 1994 by the National Income Stabilization Account ("NISA") Committee were ultra vires of the Farm Income Protection Act on the basis that with the repeal of the Western Grain Transportation Act, in 1995, these guidelines had the effect of imposing a higher burden on Saskatchewan farmers.
This was not the issue raised in the Trial Division. The issue, there, which was raised through a judicial review proceeding, was whether the Appeals Sub-Committee of the NISA Committee had erred in finding that the Point of Sale Guidelines had been properly applied by the NISA Administration.
Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the Appeals Sub-Committee has jurisdiction to decide whether guidelines are ultra vires, the issue was not put to it and we are in no position to rule on it.
As the argument goes, the Minister has the duty, pursuant to subsection 4(2) of the Farm Income Protection Act, to revisit the Agreement signed in 1994 because of the repeal of the Western Grain Transportation Act, in 1995. Assuming that the Minister has that duty, he should the argument goes, take into consideration the effects of the repeal of this Act, in which case he would necessarily reach the conclusion that the Point of Sale Guidelines should be replaced with another set of guidelines.
While there may be some merit in the views expressed by counsel, the proper avenue, it seems to us, -- apart, of course, from attempting to reach a consensus through the administrative process already in place -- would be to start afresh with a new proceeding seeking the proper remedy from the proper authority.
Despite the very able arguments put forward by Mr. Anderson on behalf of the appellants, we are therefore of the view that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
Email this Content