This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
~ '--\?Ir~~ Court File No.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRIFOOD IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD Appellants - andBETWEEN: FRIENDS OF THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD, HAROLD BELL, DANIEL GAUTHIER, KEN ESHPETER, TERRY BOEHM, LYLE SIMONSON, LYNN JACOBSON, ROBERT HORNE, WILF HARDER, LAURENCE NICHOLSON, LARRY BOHDANOVICH, KEITH RYAN, ANDY BAKER, NORBERT VAN DEYNZE, WILLIAM ACHESON, LUC LABOSSIERE, WILLIAM NICHOLSON, RENE SAQUET, and THE CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD Respondents NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE RESPONDENTS: A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the appellants. The relief claimed by the appellant appears on the following page. THIS APPEAL will be heard by the Court at a time and place to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court directs otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested by the appellants. The appellants' request that this appeal be heard at a place where the Federal Court of Appeal ordinarily sits. IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, to receive notice of any step in the appeal or to be served with any documents in the appeal, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a notice of appearance in Form 341 prescribed by the
Federal Courts Rules and serve it on the appellants' solicitor, or where the appellants are self-represented, notice of appeal. IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION of the order in Form 341 on the appellants, WITHIN 10 DAYS of being served with this
appealed from, you must serve and file a notice of cross-appeal
prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules instead of serving and filing a notice of appearance. Copies of the Federal Courts Rules, information concerning the local offices of the Court and other necessary information may be obtained on request to the Administrator of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any local office. IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, JUDGMENT MAY BE
GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT
FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
Issued by: Address of local office:
~ Federal Court of Appeal Thomas D' Arcy McGee Building 90 Sparks Street, 1st Floor Ottawa, Ontario KIA OH9 Tel: Fax: 613-996-6795 (613) 952-7226
Anders Brunn Barrister & Solicitor 8-39 Balmoral St. Winnipeg, MB R3C IX3 E-mail: email@example.com Tel: 204-233-8541 Solicitor for the Respondents Friends of The Canadian Wheat Board, Harold Bell, Daniel Gauthier, Ken Eshpeter, Terry Boehm, Lyle Simonson,
Lynn Jacobson, Robert Home, Wilf Harder, Laurence Nicholson, Larry Bohdanovich, Keith Ryan, Andy Baker, Norbert Van Deynze, William Acheson, Luc Labossiere, William Nicholson and Rene Saquet AND TO: John Lorn McDougall, Q.C. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 1 First Canadian Place 400 - 77 King Street West Toronto-Dominion Centre Toronto, ON M5K OA1 Fax: 416-863-4582 Solicitors for the Respondent The Canadian Wheat Board
THE APPELLANTS APPEAL to the Federal Court of Appeal from the order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell ("Judge") dated December 7,2011 issuing a declaration in Federal Court file T-1057 -11 that "the Minister breached his statutory duty to consult with the Board and conduct a vote of wheat and barley Producers as to whether they agree with the removal of wheat and barley from the application of Part IV of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, RSC 1985,c C-24 and with the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board's exclusive statutory marketing mandate." THE APPELLANTS ASK: (i) (ii) that the order of Justice Campbell be set aside; that the costs of this appeal and of the hearing in the Federal Court be awarded to the appellant; (iii) for such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this honourable court permit. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: Federal Courts Act 1. Sections 18.1(3) and 27(1) of the Federal Courts Act; and issuing a declaratory order of the Court in
The Judge erred in assertingjurisdiction 2.
The Judge erred in law and acted beyond the jurisdiction purporting to subject the Minister's
introduction of Bill C-18 in Parliament to
judicial review pursuant to the Federal Courts Act. 3. The Judge erred in law and exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing a declaratory order that the Minister breached his statutory duty to consult with the Board and conduct a vote of wheat and barley Producers as to whether they agree with the removal of wheat and barley from the application of Part IV of the Canadian
Wheat Board Act ("Act") and with the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board's ("CWB") exclusive statutory marketing mandate. 4. The Judge erred in law and exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing a declaratory order which was devoid of meaningful legal and practical effect. 5. The Judge erred in law and exceeded his jurisdiction requirements
assuming that the
of procedural fairness and legitimate expectations applied to the
introduction of Bill C-18 in Parliament such that the Court had discretion whether to issue a declaration to that effect. The Judge erred in misinterpreting section 47.1 of the Act 6. The Judge erred in fact and in law in his expansive statutory interpretation of section 47.1 of the Act. The Judge failed to interpret section 47.1 in accordance with its clear, unambiguous wording and in its proper statutory context. Correctly interpreted, the intended scope and application of section 47.1 are confined to amendments that would add or remove grains from the mandate of the CWB under Part III or IV of the Act. There is nothing in section 47.1 indicating that this section applies to any future bills to repeal the Act or the exclusive marketing mandate of the CWB. 7. The Judge erred in law in his statutory interpretation by ignoring the specific wording of section 47.1 of the Act. The Judge failed to analyze and base his
interpretation on any particular words in section 47.1. 8. The Judge erred in fact and in law in his finding that the elimination of the CWB's exclusive statutory marketing mandate and Bill C-18 fall within the
application of section 47.1 of the Act. The Judge made this finding without any basis in law or in fact. 9. The Judge erred in law in failing to identify which words of section 47.1 were ambiguous or "in doubt" before resorting to extrinsic evidence in the form of Hansard Debates and other principles of interpretation based on constitutional
values. The Judge also erred in law in his application of the principles of interpretation values. 10. The Judge erred in fact and in law in finding that the CWB's "democratic marketing practices are long standing," and by basing his interpretation upon irrelevant considerations such as a provision related to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Judge erred in finding the Minister failed to comply with section 47.1 of the Act 11. The Judge erred in fact and in law in finding that the Minister failed to comply with his statutory duty pursuant to section 47.1 of the Act. The Judge made this finding without any basis in law or in fact. The Judge erred infailing to provide adequate reasons and legal analysis 12. The Judge erred in fact and in law in failing to provide sufficient and adequate reasons for his declaratory order. The Judge failed to address specific and using the rule of law, democratic principles and constitutional
fundamental legal arguments raised by the Attorney General of Canada on the facts and law concerning: (a) the Court's lack of jurisdiction to review the Minister's introduction of a bill in Parliament; (b) the proper interpretation of section 47.1, including the role of section 42 of the Interpretation Act and the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty; (c) the legislative context and history of the provision; and (d) the legal criteria that would be required for an effective "manner and form" restriction. 13. The Judge erred in law by failing to consider and improperly dismissing full written submissions and oral argument on the legal criteria required to satisfy
"manner and form" restrictions on the legislative process, after the Court granted leave to interveners to argue this very legal issue. General 14. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this honourable court permit.
December 9, 2011 Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Civil Litigation Section 234 Wellington Street Room 1116, East Tower Ottawa ON KIA OR8
Tel: (613) 957-4857 Fax: (613) 954-1920 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel for the Appellants
I HEREBY CERfiFY that uie above document is a true copy of the original filed ill the Court.!
JE CERTIFIE que Ie document cl-dessus est une cople conforms depose au dossier de la Cour federale. FQing date ~ Date de di:lpol
-"b _ C......... _ ___;~_..:..:::;;;
~-~ \....- ..:::, . -.=l'\