Local

Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION

Supreme court rules against Canadian Wheat Board backers

By: Mia Rabson

Posted: 01/17/2013 10:14 AM | Comments: 0 | Last Modified: 01/17/2013 10:47 AM | Updates

(ADRIAN WYLD/ THE SUPREME COURT ARCHIVES)

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada today denied Canadian Wheat Board backers the chance to appeal a court decision which let the federal government end the board's monopoly last year.

The SCC denied leave to appeal to both the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board and former CWB chair Allan Oberg.

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said he was pleased by the decision.

"The overwhelming majority of Prairie grain farmers are already taking advantage of the benefits of an open market," he said.

"Our Government will continue to defend the rights of farmers and work with them to strengthen Canadian agriculture and our overall economy."

Ritz was in Manitoba Wednesday meeting with local farmers and announcing funding to help Manitoba food processors.

The groups were trying to have the country's highest court hear a challenge to a Federal Court of Appeal decision from June 2012 which ruled a lower court judge erred in saying Ritz broke the law when he amended the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 2011 without holding a vote among farmers.

Ritz changed the act to allow prairie farmers to choose on their own whether to sell their wheat and barley to the CWB or to other grain companies.

Wheat Board supporters were buoyed in December 2011 when Justice Douglas Campbell ruled Ritz had contravened the act. However Campbell wasn't asked to pass judgement on the bill amending the CWB act, so his judgement stood almost as irrelevant, particularly when a Manitoba judge then refused to grant an injunction against implementing the bill.

Nonetheless, the federal government appealed Campbell's ruling and the appeal court agreed, saying the provision in the CWB Act which required a vote among farmers was likely unenforceable because it took away the power of Parliament.

Stewart Wells, chair of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, said the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case has no bearing on a class action lawsuit seeking to restore the CWB or sue for $17 billion in damages. That is the amount the group says farmers will lose by having the monopoly eliminated.

mia.rabson@freepress.mb.ca

History

Updated on Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 10:47 AM CST: Updated

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required

In which story did you find the error? *
Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.
What was the error? *
Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.
What should we have written?
Please indicate your source for the correct information.
Who else should we interview to improve this story?
Please include any contact information you may have.
Can we contact you in the future for advice on stories about this topic?
Yes

No
First Name: *
Last Name: *
E–mail Address: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Phone: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Colour:
Are you blue? If you can see this, leave it blank and get some CSS support.
Enter the words that you see: * This is to prevent our forms from being filled out automatically.
You have failed to correctly identify the words in the box above. Please try again.

More Local

Undock

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.