• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why the Hudye v. CWB Case Should Matter to Every Farmer

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why the Hudye v. CWB Case Should Matter to Every Farmer

    Here is my opinion why the Hudye claim agaist the CWB should be of fundamental importance to all farmers in western Canada.

    Just for some background, the Hudye claim has three major components to it: the first being a contract dispute; the second, an action in defamation; and the third, a claim for breach of fiduciary obligations by the CWB.

    Now the issues over contracts and defamation are obviously personal to the parties in this situation. The outcome of those parts of the dispute won’t likely make much of a difference to the average western Canadian farmer.

    However, it’s the third part of the dispute that is of fundamental importance to every single farmer in the designated area who sells to the CWB. Even if you a proponent, an opposer, or just agnostic with respect to the CWB’s position as the sole marketer of milling wheat and barley, the claim for breach of fiduciary obligations by the CWB should matter to you.

    By way of background, the legal system recognizes a multitude of special relationships in which one party is required to look after the best interests of the other in an exemplary manner. These relationships, include solicitor/client, physician/patient, priest/parishioner, parent/child, partner/partner, director/corporation and principle/agent and are called fiduciary relationships. Fiduciary relationships entail trust and confidence and require that fiduciaries act honestly, in good faith, and strictly in the best interests of the beneficiaries of such relationships.

    If you are a farmer in the designated area, you might ask “why does this matter to me?” Well the short answer is that the Hudye claim asserts that the CWB owes each and every farmer it deals with a fiduciary duty to act in its best interests. Now you might go on to ask, “doesn’t it already?”

    If you take a look at the CWB’s website there are all sorts of statements that indicate the CWB acts in the interests of farmers; however, when the rubber has met the road, the CWB’s position has been the exact opposite.

    Take for instance the case of Renova Holdings Ltd. v. Canadian Wheat Board, 2006 FC 71. In that case, the plaintiff producers claimed that the CWB owed it a fiduciary duty.

    Not only did the CWB deny the assertion, but in fact they went to court to attempt to strike the claim in its entirety. To succeed in such an application the CWB would need to prove that it was “plain and obvious” and “beyond doubt” that it did not owe such a duty. Moreover, from the CWB’s perspective it was plain and obvious and it was beyond doubt that they believed there was no such duty owed to producers.

    Fortunately both a prothanotary and the Federal Court of Canada decided that it was not plain and obvious and that it was not beyond doubt that there was no fiduciary duty so the CWB’s assertions failed. The Renova case later came to an end for other reasons and it does not appear that the fiduciary obligations claim was ever completely resolved.

    In the current Hudye case, this concept of the CWB’s fiduciary duty has been revived. No matter what side of the fence you stand on with respect to the CWB, it would seem to me that it is in every producer’s interests to have law that states that the duty of the CWB is to act honestly, in good faith, and strictly in your best interests at all times.

    After all, if they aren’t acting in producers’ best interests, in who’s interests are they acting?

    James Rosowsky, Juris Doctor
    www.jrplc.com
    403-478-9043

    #2
    I would think a Lawyer from Calgary would look at both sides of a case before making a decision based on hearsay

    Comment


      #3
      Don't mind stubble he's one of our resident wheat board groupies.

      Comment


        #4
        The CWB wanted the Renova Case thrown out based on M-Jay Farms and Riske.

        M-Jay Farms Enterprises Ltd. v. Canadian Wheat Board (The), 1997 CanLII 2704 (MB C.A.)

        "The Act itself suggests that the Board is not to be held accountable to producers, but rather to the Minister responsible and, ultimately, to Parliament itself."

        "This accords with an earlier decision involving an action against the Board; namely, Riske et al. v. Canadian Wheat Board (1976), 71 D.L.R. (3d) 686, a decision of Primrose J. of the Federal Court, Trial Division. He held in favour of the Board on its motion to strike out a claim as disclosing no cause of action. The claim was a class action initiated by two barley producers who were dissatisfied with the price received by producers for barley which was delivered to the Board. It was alleged that the barley in question was suitable for resale for malting purposes at a higher than usual price, and an accounting was demanded. Primrose J. held that the statutory scheme envisioned an accounting to Parliament and not directly to producers."

        "The defendant says the plaintiffs have no legal right to proceed in an action of this kind and that the Board is only responsible to the Minister and ultimately to Parliament and there is no legal duty to the plaintiffs since there is no duty imposed on the Board under the statute that would permit an action of this kind."

        The difference is in the fact that the CWB is composed of specific "Parts" some which are national in scope and some which apply only to the designated area. M-Jay and Riske was about CWB selling which is in the national Part I of the Act and clearly states the CWB can sell at what ever price they want (or ore ordered to sell at by the Government).

        The Renova case involved Part III buying and pooling from designated area farmers and what could be deducted from the pool accounts.

        Comment

        • Reply to this Thread
        • Return to Topic List
        Working...