Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Canadian Wheat Board)

Canada (Attorney General) v. Canada (Canadian Wheat Board)

The presumption in s.31(4) of the Interpretation Act does not apply because Parliament manifested a contrary intention in the 1998 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act (including enactment of s.47.1, amendment to s.47 and repeal of para.46(b)) read in their statutory and historical context; therefore the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2008 FCA 76
Parties
Appellant: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: The Canadian Wheat Board; Respondent: Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board; Intervener: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Food); Intervener: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Manitoba (as represented by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives); Intervener: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Saskatchewan (as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Food); Intervener: Western Barley Growers Association; Intervener: Attorney General of Manitoba
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Federal Court (judgment of July 31, 2007); Hearing and Judgment at Federal Court of Appeal on February 26, 2008
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation Act S.31(4), Canadian Wheat Board Act Amendments (1998), Governor in Council Regulatory Powers, Parliamentary Sovereignty
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Constitutional Law Interpretation Act S.31(4) Canadian Wheat Board Act Amendments (1998) Governor in Council Regulatory Powers Parliamentary Sovereignty

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General of Canada

Appellant

The Canadian Wheat Board

Respondent

Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board

Respondent

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Food)

Intervener

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Manitoba (as represented by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives)

Intervener

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Saskatchewan (as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Food)

Intervener

Western Barley Growers Association

Intervener

Attorney General of Manitoba

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Federal Court (judgment of July 31, 2007); Hearing and Judgment at Federal Court of Appeal on February 26, 2008

  1. 1 Whether the presumption in s.31(4) of the Interpretation Act grants the Governor in Council authority to repeal a regulation excluding barley from the Canadian Wheat Board mandate
  2. 2 Whether Parliament manifested a contrary intention in the 1998 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that prevents application of the presumption
  3. 3 Whether s.47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is constitutionally invalid for fettering parliamentary sovereignty

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption in s.31(4) of the Interpretation Act does not apply because Parliament manifested a contrary intention in the 1998 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act (including enactment of s.47.1, amendment to s.47 and repeal of para.46(b)) read in their statutory and historical context; therefore the Governor in Council lacked authority to remove barley from the Board's mandate by regulation and the appeals fail.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs