Minister Gerry Ritz has been found guilty of disregarding the law. 

The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell ruled in favour of  the Canadian Wheat Board, the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, and all those that have been fighting the injustices put forward by the Harper Government.

You can find the documents here: 

http://friendsofcwb.ca/j/about/court-documents

OR

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Wheat%20board%20t-1735-11%20and%20t-1057-11%20summary.pdf
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/rss/Wheat%20Board%20T-1735-11%20and%20T-1057-11%20reasons.pdf

Section 47.1 of the Wheat Board Act:   

The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless 

(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and 

(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister

Here are some quotes from the courts findings:

When government does not comply with the law, this is not merely non-compliance with a particular law, it is an affront to the rule of law itself (Chief Justice Fraser, 2011,)

[27] "I accept the argument that the CWB’s democratic marketing practices are “significant and fundamental” because they are long standing, and strongly supported by a large number of the some 17,000 grain producers in Western Canada." 

[28] "I give weight to the Council’s argument that s. 47.1 applies to changing the structure of the CWB because the democratic structure is important to Canada’s international trade obligations under NAFTA. I find that this is an important consideration which supports the argument that Parliament’s intention in s. 47.1 is not to alter this structure without consultation and consent. " 

[31] Section 39 of Bill C-18 proposes to replace the whole marketing scheme of wheat in Canada by repealing the Act after a transition period. I find that it was Parliament’s intention in introducing s. 47.1 to stop this event from occurring without the required consultation and consent

THESE ARE THE KICKERS THAT SHOW THE COURT RECOGNIZES THIER DUTY TO THE PEOPLE OF CANADA: 

 CONCLUSION: 

 [33] The Minister argues that the declarations should not be granted because their effect would be meaningless. In response, I say that there are two meaningful effects of granting the Breach 

Declarations.

[34] The first effect is that a lesson can be learned from what has just occurred. Section 47.1 speaks, it says: “engage in a consultative process and work together to find a solution.”  The change process is threatening and should be approached with caution.  Generally speaking, when advancing a significant change to an established management scheme, the failure to provide a meaningful opportunity for dissenting voices to be heard and accommodated forces resort to legal means to have them heard. In the present piece, simply pushing ahead without engaging such a process has resulted in the present Applications being launched. Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might not have been necessary.  Judicial review serves an important function; in the present Applications the voices have been heard, which, in my opinion, is fundamentally importantly because it is the message that s. 47.1 conveys.  

[35] The second and most important effect is that the Minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law.   

[36] I find it is fair and just to issue the Breach Declaration on each Application.  

• < Prev
• Next >