CWB vs Farmers...

[Raven]

dmlf

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=33334

If you go to this website the following is all neatly boxed.

Date Proceeding Filed By
(if applicable)
row 1 2010-01-25 Close file on Leave
row 2 2010-01-22 Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties
row 3 2010-01-22 Judgment on leave sent to the parties
row 4 2010-01-21 Decision on the application for leave to appeal, Bi F Cha, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-446-08, 2009 FCA 214, dated June 23, 2009, is dismissed with costs.
Dismissed, with costs Not applicable
row 5 2009-12-07 All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, Bi F Cha

row 6 2009-10-30 Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, Completed on: 2009-10-30 Canadian Wheat Board
row 7 2009-10-20 Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2009-10-20 Attorney General of Canada
row 8 2009-09-23 Letter acknowledging receipt of a complete application for leave to appeal
row 9 2009-09-21 Book of authorities Canadian Wheat Board
row 10 2009-09-21 Application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2009-09-21 Canadian Wheat Board

Presumably Bi = Binnie
F = Fish
Cha = Charron

I note they call it a "formal judgment"

Incidently, for so much a page, the court registrar will send copies of everything to interested parties. I have the CWB's application arguments, Government's rsponse and CWB's reply.

[Fransisco]

Rockpile, the reality is that what the majority of farmers want is irrelevant. And the reason for this is the rules that govern the wheat board today. The appeal court made it very clear, it is the federal government who is in charge of the wheat board. If 100% of the directors were elected on a pro choice platform and we had a Liberal government in power do you really think the Liberals would allow marketing freedom to occur? They certainly would not and wouldn't think twice about it.

The reality is that the conservatives have the power to make a lot of necessary changes, they have promised to make those changes many times in the past, they should make those changes.

Your majority rules argument is a moral one, and there is nothing moral about a majority voting away a minorities rights to their life, liberty, or property. Take a look at our constitution and our charter of rights and freedoms there are all sorts of things in there which say hands off to the government and majority opinion. The conservatives are on the moral high ground by giving us back the right to sell our property. And they have the legal ability to do so.

[dmlfarmer]

Raven: Thanks for providing the details of the application for leave to appeal. Yes you are right, these judges did give a formal ruling dening the leave to appeal.

However, the role of the 3 judges in reviewing an application for leave to appeal is to determine if the case is worthy to bring to trial, not the merits of the case itself.

What I do not know, and what I asked you to back up with fact is your assertion that these 3 judges "decided that they are in agreement with the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal" and "endorsed" the Federal Court of Appeal ruling.

If you have evidence to support these statements you made, than please present it. If what you claim is true and Supreme Court judges are predetermining the outcome of cases without fair trial then an investigation into these judges is needed. You are making very serious allegations of abuse of judical power.

[Fransisco]

Okay dml lets reverse the argument then, what proof do you have that the Supreme Court decided that they are not in agreement with the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal" and have therefore not "endorsed" the Federal Court of Appeal ruling.

Are you really trying to argue that the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case because they disagree with the lower courts ruling?

[dmlfarmer]

Ha Ha Ha! Talk about conspiracy theories. Fran you really brightened my day.

Contray to what you are insinuating, I have never claimed the Supreme Court was in disagreement of the Federal Court of appeal decision. (laughing again)

I believe the 3 judges did exactly as they were supposed to do when they received the application for leave to appeal. They reviewed the application and decided that this application did not call for an interpretation of the law, nor would a trial be a matter of great importance to most Canadians. Therefore it did not meet the criteria needed for leave to appeal be granted and a trial sheduled. The decision to deny was neither a rejection, nor an endorsement of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling. So the Federal Court of Appeal ruling stands.

[Raven]

dmlf, I give you full marks for being tenacious.

Read again your own words on spinning:

"Spin has a nasty habit of coming back and biting the spin doctor in the ass, especially if the spin doctor continues to try to mislead after being called on it.

'The truth, unlike lies, require no embellishment' Michael Mencias"

I try to follow what I once read: "don't let the wish become the parent of the thought"
(and no I cannot provide you with the source of that saying)

[Fransisco]

It's got nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just trying to clarify your nit-picky argument.

I don't think it is particularly unreasonable for someone to say the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's decision based on the fact that they see no need to review the decision. You may wish to put it on the razor's edge of a neutral position, but that's not a particularly convincing argument. If they weren't sure one way or the other they would have proceeded with another trial to clarify things.

Nevertheless the important thing in all this is that the appeal court ruling stands and is the law of the land, and the CWB will have to abide by it.

[Fransisco]

Back to the notion of voting on the whole thing, I think farmers should be allowed to vote with their trucks and their deliveries just like they do with all of their other crops. There's nothing more democratic than the marketplace.

[sumdumguy]

So sad for Canadian farmers. Who in the free world could ever believe the cunundrum faced by producers? It almost seems surreal. Bins full of durum and your hands are tied because you have to sell it through an agency who has no intention nor incentive to perform - how fun. Cruel game.