Villetard's Eggs Ltd. v. Canada ( Egg Marketing Agency )
T-2042-93
Muldoon J.
4/11/94
19 pp.
Application for judicial review of Canadian Egg Marketing Agency (the "Agency") decision not to issue applicant buyers' and sellers' licences for interprovincial marketing of eggs-Partnership, consisting in part of directors and shareholders of current corporate appellant, subject to revocation of interprovincial buyer's and seller's licence by Agency on grounds it had breached conditions of licence and regulations by improperly engaging in marketing of eggs-Corporate appellant purporting to be new entity unrelated to dissolved partnership-In refusing to issue licence, Agency relying on Wright v. Canada (Egg Marketing Agency), [1978] 2 F.C. 260 (C.A.) which held applicant's conduct colourable where course of conduct intending to enable it to do indirectly what it could not do directly-Since Wright decision, licensing provision modified to narrow Agency's scope of powers-Case at bar distinguishable from Wright in that, unlike present case, latter involved: (1) conspiracy to break law for money; (2) stealth, in continuing to sell after licence revoked; and (3) deliberate defiance of law and of Agency-Applicant openly applying to Agency in its corporate name and abiding by Agency's adverse decision-Also, present case including element of constitutional principle or equality of opportunity with respect to egg producers in territories who, because of location cannot have egg production quota and thus cannot engage in interprovincial or international trade-Unlike Wright case, applicant not destroying bona fides of application-Current s. 5 mandatory unless applicant falling within s. 8 exception-Agency justified in refusing to issue licence upon true evidence of conspiracy, evasion of law, sham, fraud, deception and defiance on part of applicant; however such evidence not present in application at bar-Standard of proof with respect to these criminal-like charges high probability and Agency must be correct in assessment for refusal to be upheld on judicial review-Statutory tribunal as Agency having no inherent jurisdiction; nor does Agency have privative provision to shield its decisions from judicial review-Agency's expertise lying in interprovincial and international marketing of eggs and not with questions of jurisdiction, or law of colourable attempts, conspiracy, fraud or deception; thus Court owing Agency no deference in these regards-Despite misdeeds of partnership, present corporate applicant not colourable device unless implicated in sham, fraud and deception-Court quashing Agency decision to refuse licence and directing it to process application without regard to any conduct or activities but those of applicant-Canadian Egg Licensing Regulations, 1987, SOR/87-242, ss. 5, 7 (as am. by SOR/88-455, s. 2).