Central Canada Potash Co. Ltd. et al. v. Government of Saskatchewan

Central Canada Potash Co. Ltd. et al. v. Government of Saskatchewan

The potash prorationing schemes, Potash Conservation Regulations 1969, Orders in Council and implementing directives/licences were in pith and substance a provincial attempt to regulate export/interprovincial marketing and to fix export price and are therefore ultra vires provincial legislative authority; however, the Deputy Minister’s communications did not constitute the tort of intimidation because he sought to enforce legislation that was valid and unchallenged at the time and there was no evidence of an intention to injure.

Citation
[1979] 1 SCR 42
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Central Canada Potash Co. Limited; Appellant / Co Plaintiff: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent / Defendant: Government of Saskatchewan; Intervener: Attorney General of Quebec; Intervener: Attorney General of New Brunswick; Intervener: Attorney General of Manitoba; Intervener: Attorney General of Alberta; Intervener: Attorney General of Newfoundland
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge to Provincial Regulations (prorationing and Price‑fixing) and Related Tort Claim; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (final Determination)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: Court of Appeal judgment set aside on the constitutional issue; trial judge’s declaration that regulations, orders, prorationing schemes and implementing directives/licences are ultra vires restored; appeal dismissed on damages claim (no liability for intimidation)
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Prorationing of Production, Price Fixing / Minimum Price, Export and Interprovincial Trade Regulation, Ministerial Directives and Licences, Mandamus, Tort of Intimidation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Federalism Administrative Law Tort Law Natural Resources Law Ultra Vires Prorationing of Production Price Fixing / Minimum Price +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Canada Potash Co. Limited

Appellant / Plaintiff

Attorney General of Canada

Appellant / Co Plaintiff

Government of Saskatchewan

Respondent / Defendant

Attorney General of Quebec

Intervener

Attorney General of New Brunswick

Intervener

Attorney General of Manitoba

Intervener

Attorney General of Alberta

Intervener

Attorney General of Newfoundland

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge to Provincial Regulations (prorationing and Price‑fixing) and Related Tort Claim; Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Appeal From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (final Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Potash Conservation Regulations 1969, Orders in Council 1733/69 and 404/70, ABC and FP prorationing schemes and associated directives/licences were ultra vires the Province as regulation of interprovincial/export trade and price fixing
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence concerning circumstances and purpose of the Regulations was admissible and material to constitutional characterization
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Minister’s letters and threats amounted to the tort of intimidation and whether damages were recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The potash prorationing schemes, Potash Conservation Regulations 1969, Orders in Council and implementing directives/licences were in pith and substance a provincial attempt to regulate export/interprovincial marketing and to fix export price and are therefore ultra vires provincial legislative authority; however, the Deputy Minister’s communications did not constitute the tort of intimidation because he sought to enforce legislation that was valid and unchallenged at the time and there was no evidence of an intention to injure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: Court of Appeal judgment set aside on the constitutional issue; trial judge’s declaration that regulations, orders, prorationing schemes and implementing directives/licences are ultra vires restored; appeal dismissed on damages claim (no liability for intimidation)

Orders

  • Declaration restored that Orders in Council 1733/69 and 404/70, the Potash Conservation Regulations 1969, the ABC and FP prorationing schemes and implementing directives and licences are ultra vires the Province
  • Appellants’ claim for damages for tort of intimidation dismissed