Case information

Agriculture — Contracts — Interpretation — Validity — Parties entering into contracts for purchase and sale of canola — Applicants failing to deliver required tonnage — Arbitration award for damages in favour of respondent — Judicial order nisi for sale of applicants’ lands — Order for sale confirmed by chambers judge — Court of Appeal dismissing appeal from chambers judge’s order — Whether courts below used wrong standard of review? — Whether courts below have the right to invoke or uphold common law rules or procedural laws to trump federal legislation — Whether doctrine of federal paramountcy ought to be invoked — Whether parties’ contracts were illegal, invalid and/or unconscionable under federal law — Whether title to grains changed when respondent realized on security agreements — Whether respondent committed any indictable or summary offences? — Whether respondent entitled to claim unjust enrichment if contracts deemed illegal and unenforceable — Canada Grain Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-10, s. 112.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The parties entered into contracts for the purchase and sale of canola. Under the contracts, the applicants provided a collateral mortgage and a collateral general security agreement. When the applicants failed to deliver the required tonnage of canola, the respondent took the matter to arbitration, resulting in an arbitration award of approximately $1 million to the respondent. The applicants were unsuccessful in their attempt to seek leave to appeal the arbitration award. The respondent then obtained an order nisi for sale of the applicants’ lands, and brought an application seeking a court order to confirm the sale; the applicants sought an adjournment.

The chambers judge refused to grant the applicants an adjournment, and allowed the respondent’s application for an order confirming the sale of the lands in question. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal from that decision.