Reference re Agricultural Products Marketing

Last updated
Reference Re Agricultural Products Marketing
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing:
Judgment: 1978-01-19
Citations [1978] 2 SCR 1198, 1978 CanLII 10 (SCC)
Prior historyAPPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the matter of a reference of certain questions under The Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 79.
RulingAppeal allowed in part.
Court membership
Chief JusticeLaskin C.J.
Puisne JusticesMartland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
Reasons given
MajorityMartland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
Concur/dissentLaskin C.J. and Judson, Spence and Dickson JJ.

Reference Re Agricultural Products Marketing (also known as the Egg Reference), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1198 [1] is a landmark constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on cooperative federalism where the Court unanimously upheld the validity of various Acts passed by the Parliament of Canada and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for establishing a national agricultural marketing scheme agreed upon by the federal and provincial governments.

Contents

Background

The marketing of agricultural products has had a turbulent history in Canada. [2] In 1949, the Parliament of Canada enacted the Agricultural Products Marketing Act [3] in order to regulate extraprovincial trade. By the 1960s, Ontario and other provinces had settled on a model of marketing boards for specified agricultural products, while the federal government started to set up national schemes as with the Canadian Dairy Commission.

Many provinces, but especially Ontario and Quebec, entered into the "Chicken and Egg War" of 1971, where they used their powers to retaliate against each other's products. This resulted in the passage of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act by the Parliament of Canada that came into force in December 1972, and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency was the first scheme to be created on a national scale under it.

In 1976, the Ontario government posed several reference questions to the Court of Appeal for Ontario as to the constitutionality of the entire federal-provincial scheme. In particular, the following Acts were specified:

  • the Agricultural Products Marketing Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1970, Chapter A-7, [4] (which allowed the federal government to authorize provincial marketing agencies to regulate interprovincial and export trade),
  • the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act (Canada), 19-20-21, Eliz. II, Chapter 65, [5] (which authorized the federal government to establish national marketing agencies with such powers in specified circumstances), and
  • the Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario), R.S.O. 1970, c. 162, [6] (which authorized the creation of marketing agencies in Ontario, specifying their powers, and authorizing them to cooperate with agencies created by Canada and other provinces).

At the Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the scheme, with Dubin J.A. (as he then was) dissenting only with respect to two provisions. The Attorney General of Quebec, together with several groups of egg producers, appealed the result to the Supreme Court of Canada.

At the Supreme Court of Canada

The scheme was generally upheld, with the appeal being allowed only in part. The majority generally adopted the reasons given by Laskin, C.J., subject to reservations.

Question Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. Laskin C.J. and Judson, Spence and Dickson JJ.
1. Are sections 2 and 3 of the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chapter A-7, ultra vires the Parliament of Canada in whole or in part and if so, in what respect and to what extent? Yes as to s. 2(2)(a); No as to s. 2.(2)(b) as well as to s. 3 in respect thereto. No, as to s. 2(1); yes, as to s. 2(2)(a); no, as to s. 2(2)(b); and no, as to s. 3 in respect of s. 2(1) and s. 2(2)(b).
2. Are S.O.R./72-243; (Ontario Egg Order) S.O.R./72-246, S.O.R./72-306, S.O.R./73-228 and S.O.R./75-217 (Ontario Egg Marketing Levies Orders) ultra vires the enabling legislation, the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chapter A‑7, in whole or in part and if so, in what respect and to what extent? No No
3. Is the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, 19-20-21, Eliz. II, Chapter 65, and in particular
(a) Sections 2(e)(vi), 18 and 23 and
(b) Sections 6, 7, 17 and 32

ultra vires the Parliament of Canada in whole or in part and if so, in what respect and to what extent?

No, but s. 23(1)(a) does not authorize a federal agency to purchase surpluses in any market and to dispose of its purchases as an ordinary trader No, as it does not contravene Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867
4. (a) Is S.O.R./73-1 (Canadian Egg Marketing Agency Proclamation) ultra vires the enabling legislation the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, 19‑20-21, Eliz. II, Chapter 65, in whole or in part and if so, in what respect and to what extent?

(b) Is S.O.R./73-1 section 10 ultra vires the enabling legislation the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, 19‑20-21, Eliz. II, Chapter 65, in whole or in part and if so, in what respect and to what extent?

No No
5. (a) Are S.O.R./73-284 (Canada Egg Marketing Levies Order), S.O.R./74-89 (Canada Egg Marketing Levies Order), S.O.R./74-207 (Canada Interim Egg Levies Order), S.O.R./75-173 (Canada Interim Egg Levies Order) ultra vires the enabling legislation, The Farm Products Marketing Agencies Proclamation, in whole or in part, and if so, in what respect and to what extent?

(b) Are S.O.R./74-208 (Canada Egg Purchasing Levies Order), S.O.R./74‑329 (Canada Egg Purchasing Levies Order), S.O.R./-74-393 (Canada Egg Purchasing Levies Order), S.O.R./74-562 (Canada Egg Purchasing Levies Order), S.O.R./74-644 (Canada Egg Purchasing Levies Order), S.O.R./75-89 (Canada Egg Purchasing Levies Order) and S.O.R./75-174 (Canada Egg Purchasing Levies Order) ultra vires the enabling legislation, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Proclamation, in whole or in part, and if so, in what respect and to what extent?

No No
6. Is S.O.R./73-286 (Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations) ultra vires the enabling legislation, The Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and the Canadian Egg Marketing Proclamation, in whole or in part, and if so, in what respect and to what extent? No No
7. Are sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15(a) and 22 of the Farm Products Marketing Act of Ontario and amendments thereto ultra vires the Legislature of Ontario in whole or in part, and if so, in what respect and to what extent? No, as a Legislature may delegate powers to an agency as much as it sees fit, and there is no reason to read this Act as going beyond its professed intent No, as the Act itself would not be impeachable as encroaching on federal power, but its overreaching administration would be invalidated as going beyond the scope of power conferred by the Act, as well as being in itself unconstitutional
8. Is Ontario Regulation 595/72 ultra vires the legislative power of Ontario in whole or in part and if so, in what respect and to what extent? No, as the control of production, whether agricultural or industrial, is prima facie a local matter, a matter of provincial jurisdiction, subject to s. 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867 No, as the fact that a Province has adopted the same share percentage as determined under a federal order does not per se rule out its connection with intraprovincial trade
9. Is section 21a of the Farm Products Marketing Act of Ontario ultra vires the Legislature of Ontario in whole or in part and if so, in what respect and to what extent? No, as for #8 No, as for #8
10. Are Regulations 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for the year 1975 passed by the Ontario Egg Producers Marketing Board ultra vires the enabling legislation, the Farm Products Marketing Act of Ontario, in whole or in part, and if so, in what respect and to what extent? No No

Impact

The ruling established the following points:

  • The federal (apart from two provisions) and Ontario Acts were upheld in total, including numerous regulations thereunder, particularly including quota systems.
  • Authority to impose levies, long thought to be strictly a federal matter, was declared to be a matter of dual jurisdiction, depending on where the product upon which the levy is imposed is marketed.

Following the ruling, national marketing agencies were subsequently established with respect to chickens, turkeys and broiler eggs.

The approval that was given to the operation of federal-provincial schemes has also been called the cooperative federalism approach, which has been employed in other areas of shared jurisdiction, and how far that can go was recently discussed in Reference re Securities Act . [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Canada</span> Highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.

Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bora Laskin</span> Chief Justice of Canada from 1973 to 1984

Bora Laskin was a Canadian jurist who served as the 14th chief justice of Canada from 1973 to 1984. Laskin was appointed a puisne justice of the Supreme Court in 1970, and served on the Ontario Court of Appeal from 1965 to 1970. Before he was named to the bench, Laskin worked as a lawyer and in academia.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.

Section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the property and civil rights power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

<i>General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of the Trade and Commerce power of the Constitution Act, 1867 as well as the interpretation of the Ancillary doctrine.

<i>R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Eastern Terminal Elevator Co is an early constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Constitution's Trade and Commerce power.

<i>Caloil Inc v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Caloil Inc v Canada (AG) is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting the transport or sale of imported oil in a certain region of Ontario.

<i>Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act (Ontario), 1957 S.C.R. 198 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Trade and Commerce power allocated to the federal government under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Court held that the Trade and Commerce power applied not just to trade but also to the flow of goods.

<i>Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Multiple Access Ltd v McCutcheon is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the resolution of overlapping federal and provincial laws under the doctrine of double aspect.

<i>Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association [1971] S.C.R. 689 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The decision was the result of a growing political debate known as the "chicken and egg war" where Quebec and Ontario enacted protectionist legislation for the egg and poultry industry preventing Manitoba from selling their eggs and poultry products in those provinces. To much of the public's surprise the Court struck down a provincial statute regulating the marketing of eggs. The case somewhat contradicted the precedent case of Carnation Co. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board, [1968] S.C.R. 238 which held that provincial law that has an incidental effect on other provinces is still valid.

Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the trade and commerce power, grants the Parliament of Canada the authority to legislate on:

2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.

MacDonald v Vapor Canada Ltd, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Trade and Commerce power under section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

<i>Reference Re Securities Act</i> 2011 Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re Securities Act is a landmark opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada to a reference question posed on the extent of the ability of the Parliament of Canada to use its trade and commerce power.

<i>Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v R</i>

Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v R (1978), [1979] 1 SCR 101, is a leading Canadian property law decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on expropriation. The court held that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, RSC 1970, c F-13, which granted a Crown corporation a monopoly over fish exports from Manitoba, deprived the appellants of goodwill. This deprivation amounted to an uncompensated regulatory taking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Canadian Constitution

Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to the entry of goods from one province into another.

Section 92(14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the administration of justice power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

<i>Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act</i>

The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, was an Act of the Parliament of Canada that attempted to remedy a wave of insolvencies that occurred among Canadian farmers during the Great Depression. Originally framed to deal with such problems nationwide, it was gradually reduced in scope, and was reenacted in 1943 to apply solely to farmers in the Prairie Provinces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867</span> Provision of the Constitution of Canada

Section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a provision of the Constitution of Canada giving the federal Parliament the power to create the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal courts. Although Parliament created the Supreme Court by an ordinary federal statute in 1875, the Court is partially entrenched by the amending formula set out in the Constitution Act, 1982. The composition of the Court can only be changed by a unanimous constitutional amendment, passed by the two houses of Parliament, and all of the provincial legislative assemblies.

References

  1. ↑ Reference re Agricultural Products Marketing, [1978] 2 SCR 1198, 1978 CanLII 10 (SCC) Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM  and CanLII
  2. ↑ John C. McMurchy, Q.C. (April 1990). "A History of Agricultural Marketing Legislation in Ontario". Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs . Retrieved 2012-09-10.
  3. ↑ originally the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, S.C. 1949, c. 16
  4. ↑ now the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-6)
  5. ↑ now the Farm Products Agencies Act, (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-4)
  6. ↑ now the Farm Products Marketing Act, (R.S.O. 1990, c. F.9)
  7. ↑ John B. Laskin, Darryl C. Patterson. "Moving Forward after the Securities Act Reference: The Future of Securities Regulation in Canada" (PDF). Torys LLP. pp. 9–10. Retrieved 2012-09-10.

Resource

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.