Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Can. (1982), 44 N.R. 354 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Canada, Government of, and Minister of Economic Development
Indexed As: Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada, Government of, and Minister of Economic Development
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
July 22, 1982.
Summary:
A poultry processor was refused a supplementary import permit for four million pounds of live chickens. The processor applied to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, for an order of mandamus to compel the Minister to issue the supplementary import permit. The Trial Division dismissed the processor’s application. The processor appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 42 N.R. 312 dismissed the appeal. The processor appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Statutes – Topic 4947
Enabling acts – Powers – Discretionary power versus duty – A poultry processor was refused a supplementary import permit for four million pounds of live chickens – The processor alleged that s. 8 of the Export and Import Permits Act created a duty to issue import permits upon the fulfillment of certain conditions – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 8 conferred a discretionary authority to issue import permits and did not create a duty.
Administrative Law – Topic 8266
Administrative powers – Discretionary powers – Exercise of discretionary powers – Limitations – A poultry processor was refused a supplementary import permit for four million pounds of live chickens – The processor alleged that the Minister in exercising his discretion improperly considered the availability of eviscerated chicken – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that such a consideration was not clearly extraneous or irrelevant to the exercise of the Minister’s discretion conferred by the Export and Import Permits Act.
Statutes Noticed:
Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-17, sect. 5, sect. 8.
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 28 [para. 5].
Counsel:
D.K. Laidlaw, Q.C., and Alan J. Lenczner, for the appellant;
W.A. Hobson, Q.C., and R.P. Hynes, for the respondents;
Francois Lemieux, for the intervenant the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency.
This case was heard on November 4, 1981, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., RITCHIE, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On July 22, 1982, McINTYRE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada:
