Farmers file Wheat Board case with Supreme Court

(Swift Current, Saskatchewan, December 16, 2014) Yesterday counsel for the farmer Plaintiffs in the Class Action lawsuit stemming from the Harper Government’s dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board filed documents seeking leave to have several key issues of the case considered by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Steven Shrybman of Sack, Goldblatt, and Mitchell of Toronto, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs remarked “this Class Action addresses some fundamental issues surrounding the right of people to democratically choose to work together and to build and hold assets collectively. Our clients feel this aspect of the Class Action is uniquely important not only to western grain farmers, but also to the interests of Canadian society and business in general, and deserves the consideration of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Anders Bruun, a Winnipeg lawyer and co-counsel for the Plaintiffs stated “The recent Federal Court of Appeal ruling gave a green light for the Class Action to proceed with the parts of the case based on the misallocation of CWB Pool account funds in 2011/12. This part of the Class Action will be going forward regardless of the results of this leave to appeal application.”

Stewart Wells, Chairperson of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, said “There are three levels of loss – the values of the ongoing business, the hard assets including the contingency fund, and the misallocation of funds during the transition. Together these represent about a $17 billion loss to western Canadian farmers. The fact that farmers have lost $5 billion over the last 2 years that they would have received had the Wheat Board been in place proves the true value of the Wheat Board.”

“Clearly we believe the brand and the good name of the farmer-owned Wheat Board is also a form of property built and paid for by farmers, and this appeal will allow the Court to address this very substantial loss” explained Wells.

He went on to say, “I’m glad the plaintiffs have elected to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to address the inconsistency in lower court rulings holding that farmers have a right to advance a claim for pool account monies yet do not have a right to the property bought and paid for with those pool account monies.”

Wells concluded “the seizure of their CWB assets and Ottawa’s claim farmers have no right to them has galvanized the farm community to lay claim to all the Wheat Board assets farmers bought and paid for, not just the cash remaining in the Pool account.” -30-

For further information call:
Stewart Wells: (306) 773-6852
Anders Bruun: (204) 416-3562

Farmer Plaintiffs:
Harold Bell: Fort St. John, British Columbia
Andrew Dennis: Brookdale, Manitoba
Nathan Macklin: DeBolt, Alberta
Ian McCreary: Bladworth, Saskatchewan

Friends of the CWB to appeal class action ruling

A group of farmers who tried to launch a class action lawsuit against the federal government and CWB is promising to keep fighting against what it calls an “unprecedented theft” of farmer assets by Ottawa.

Stewart Wells, chair of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB), announced Jan. 2 that farmer litigants will appeal a Nov. 29 ruling by Federal Court justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer.

That ruling rejected many of the arguments put forward by the FCWB in its statement of claim and refuted suggestions that farmer property had been unjustly confiscated by Ottawa and the CWB.

In her ruling, Tremblay-Lamar suggested that changes to CWB legislation did not divest class action plaintiffs of property or assets.

However, the government may have deprived farmers of some pool payouts during the 2011-12-transition year, she added.

Because of that, a limited class action suit should be allowed to continue, she said.

But in a news release issued today by the FCWB, Wells said plaintiffs believe that Tremblay-Lamer erred in her judgment.

“Our supporters feel that it is imperative that we continue with our legal efforts to recover the $17 billion of value and assets farmers put into the wheat board,” Wells said in the news release.

“It was 50 years ago this past month the Canadian Wheat Board, in consultation with its farmer advisory committee, moved into a downtown Winnipeg office building bought and paid for with farmers’ money, and no amount of legal sophistry or rationalization can change the fact farmers are owed compensation for what amounts to an unprecedented theft of private resources by Ottawa.”

Anders Bruun, legal counsel for FCWB, said the appeal moves forward the legal action on the seizure of the wheat board’s assets and reputation from farmers by the federal government.

“(This appeal) … shows the resolve of my clients to keep fighting against the expropriation without compensation that the government has visited on farmers,” Bruun said.

Farmers move ahead with Wheat Board class action

(Swift Current, Saskatchewan, January 2, 2014) Stewart Wells, chairperson of The Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board announced that farmer litigants, with the full support of the group, have filed an appeal of a November 29, 2013 Federal Court ruling by Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer.

Wells said “We believe Justice Tremblay-Lamer made errors of fact in her judgment and our supporters feel that it is imperative that we continue with our legal efforts to recover the $17 billion dollars of value and assets farmers put into the Wheat Board.”

Wells went on to point out “It was fifty years ago this past month the Canadian Wheat Board, in consultation with its farmer advisory committee moved into a downtown Winnipeg office building bought and paid for with farmers’ money, and no amount of legal sophistry or rationalization can change the fact farmers are owed compensation for what amounts to an unprecedented theft of private resources by Ottawa.”

Wells concluded by saying: “Farmers know who built and paid for Canadian Wheat Board assets and farmers have a legitimate expectation of compensation from the federal government.”

Nathan Macklin, one of the farmer plaintiffs from Alberta said “if Ottawa did this to a multinational corporation they would be forced by NAFTA and our other trade obligations to provide compensation. Allowing this essentially makes farmers, and all Canadians, second class citizens in our own country.”

Anders Bruun, legal counsel for the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, stated “this appeal moves forward the legal action on the seizure of the Wheat Board’s assets and reputation from farmers by the Federal government and shows the resolve of my clients to keep fighting against the expropriation without compensation that the government has visited on farmers.”

For further information call:
Stewart Wells: (306) 773-6852
Anders Bruun: (204) 416-3562
Nathan Macklin: (780) 957-2583

Friends of CWB argue fairness and property rights before Federal Court

Last week the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board legal team, representing farmer plaintiffs from across the west, filed a legal brief with the Federal Court of Canada in connection with their class action law suit to seek $17 billion in compensation from Ottawa for ending the farmer owned single desk Canadian Wheat Board.

The legal brief has been filed in response to the Federal government’s contention grain producers have no interest in the assets and goodwill of the CWB and the Federal Court should therefore dismiss the farmers’ Class Action.
One of the Friends’ attorneys Anders Bruun summarized the farmers’ response by saying “the key concept here is fairness. Producers paid to build up the CWB and never got anything when government tore it down.”

Stewart Wells, the organization’s chairperson and a former farmer-elected Director of the Canadian Wheat Board went on to observe “the Federal government is taking a very narrow and self-serving view of property rights. Our position is all the property of the Canadian Wheat Board was built by farmers and part of that value is the reputation for honesty and quality which our Board developed.”
Bruun concluded by saying “This case raises fundamental questions about the nature and extent of collective property rights in organizations enabled by government but in this case, built by and for producers. It will require the Court to consider the inherent characteristics of property and address the central question of whether it is fair for government to take something that others have created, without compensating them.”

For further information call:
Stewart Wells: (306) 773-6852
Anders Bruun: (204) 416-3562

Manitoba Cattle Council Enhancement Ends Levy

featured1An empty rubble-strewn lot on Marion Street in Winnipeg is all that is left of the Manitoba Cattle Enhancement Council’s (MCEC) dream to build a a new federally inspected beef processing plant in Manitoba.

MCEC has stopped collecting a $2-per-head levy to raise funds for a plant to slaughter Manitoba cattle and expand the industry in the province.

Levy collection officially ended September 1, 2013. The lot owned by an MCEC subsidiary will be sold and levies collected over the past 12 months will returned to producers who request their funds back. MCEC itself will eventually disband.

This is the end of MCEC’s hopes for revitalizing a beef processing sector which, today, is nearly nonexistent in a province once known as a hub for Canada’s meat packing industry.

When MCEC was formed in 2006, its mandate was to invest in beef processing and conduct market research to enhance opportunities for Manitoba cattle producers.

But plans to retrofit and olf hog slaughter facility in St. Boniface into a state-of-the-art beef plan never bore fruit. In 2011, the federal government abruptly withdrew $10 million it had promised the project two years earlier.

“The project in St. Boniface was not going to go ahead. There were no other major projects on the horizon. In the circumstances, it did not seem appropriate to be continuing with this particular vehicle,” said Anders Bruun, a Winnipeg lawyer hired by the province to wind up MCEC’s affairs.

Bruun stressed that Ottawa’s decision to pull out of the project was not the only reason for MCEC folding its tents, but it was the major one.

The MCEC board tried to keep plans for the plan alive even after the feds withdrew their funding but it was without success, Bruun said.

“They worked hard and sweated mightily trying to make something happen and in the end it wasn’t there.”

The province launched MCEC in an attempt to develop domestic beef slaughter capacity after BSE closed foreign borders to Canadian cattle in 2003. The $2-per-head levy on in-province cattle sales was designed to “encourage cooperation between producers and government, and will ultimately accelerate the creation of Manitoba-owned slaughter projects,” said Manitoba Agriculture Minister Rosann Wowchuk at the time.

The mandatory levy was non-refundable at first. But the government made it refundable after many producers objected to having to pay it.

Since 2006, the levy collected just over $8 million, with 2.4 million refunded to producers on request. The province also committed nearly $4.9 million in matching funds.

MCEC spent $5.7 million developing the Marion Street project based largely on the expectation of funding through the Federal Slaughter Improvement Program, also established after BSE to encourage domestic beef slaughter capacity.

But construction never began, despite demolition of the old facility, engineering plans for the new one and environmental approvals.

Suggicient private investment for the plan failed to materialize as well, said Bruun.

“Everyone baked away from the thing in some fashion or another except the board. They kept on trying to make it work and did so for two years without success.”

Hope for a federally inspected beef plan in Manitoba now rest with Calvin Vaags, who is building a $13 million expansion of the Plains Processors abattoir in Carman, which he bought in 2008. Vaags hopes to be federally certified once construction is complete.

A federally inspected meat plan located in Winkler does not process beef.

At their annual meeting in Brandon last winter, Manitoba beef producers called for MCEC to end the levy and redistribute funds to producers. The same resolution has passed two years running.

Cam Dahl, Manitoba Beef Producers general manager, said producers ran out of patience with an agency that spent their money but never seemed to show anything for it.

The fact that a third of the money collected was refunded indicates producers’ frustration, Dahl said.

The end of the MCEC project is the second failed post-BSE attempt to build a beef plant in the province, Producer-owned co-op, Ranchers Choice, could not generate enough investment capital to build a hoped-for plan in Dauphin.

Manitoba’s beef processing sector is now no further ahead than it was before BSE. Only a relative handful of provincially inspected plants slaughter beef cattle. Otherwise, producers have to ship finished animals to plans in other provinces. Access to slaughter facilities in the U.S. is limited because of Country of Origin Labeling (COOL).

Dahl said the high cost of building and operating a slaughter facility, plus tough times in the beef packing industry are main reasons for the lack of success.

As an example, he pointed to a beef processing plant in Aberdeen, South Dakota, which filed for bankruptcy protection this summer less than a year after opening. Last January, Cargill announced it was idling its plant at Plainsview, Texas because of a shortage of cattle caused by last year’s drought in the Midwest.

Other plant closures are expected as producers continue to ratchet down their herds. North American beef cattle numbers are the lowest in decades.

“It is a difficult link in the chain to compete in. It is such a tough business,” said Dahl.

He said that Manitoba should now concentrate on developing a healthy beef industry from the ground up instead of building plants without enough cattle to fill them.

“We need to look at ways of increasing the health of the entire sector. That includes our feedlots. We are not going to have viable processing here in Manitoba unless we have a viable feedlot industry,” said Dahl.

“We need to make sure that all parts of the sector are healthy, growing and vibrant. Then a plan becomes a commercial success.”

In the meantime, Bruun urged producers to apply for levy rebates as soon as possible and no later than the end of January 2014. Application forms are available at auction markets and on line from MCEC at


Farmers launch Class Action challenge to restore Wheat Board and seek $17 Billion in damages


The Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB) announced that the law firm of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP (SGM), working with FCWB counsel, Anders Bruun, has launched a court action in the Federal Court of Canada to restore the Canadian Wheat Board and recover damages farmers have suffered as a result of Ottawa’s tampering with western grain marketing. More information about the class action can be found at

The action places new and significant constitutional arguments in front of the courts. The plaintiffs are four grain farmers, Harold Bell of British Columbia (250) 785-8996 / 262-9278, Andrew Dennis of Manitoba (204) 476-6498, Nathan Macklin of Alberta (780) 957-2583 / 832-3190, and Ian McCreary of Saskatchewan (306) 567-2099 / 561-7838.

“The goals of this action are twofold” observed Steven Shrybman, one of the SGM legal team handling the litigation. “Our primary objective is to restore democratic farmer control of the Wheat Board and the right of producers to collectively market their grain. We are also seeking compensation from the government for damages it has caused to the interests of producers.”

Brookdale, Manitoba, area farmer Andrew Dennis added “this is a complex and far reaching litigation which will include both constitutional issues and a class action to recover lost money for farmers. We have also retained Anders Bruun, a lawyer with over 20 years of grain trade experience, to act as co-counsel with SGM to prosecute this case. Mr. Bruun represented the FCWB when we stopped Ottawa removing barley from the Wheat Board in 2007. SGM has a successful track record on similar cases so we feel confident that we will ultimately reverse Ottawa’s unlawful actions and we expect our members will receive substantial compensation for the damages already done.”

Bill Gehl, chairperson of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance and a member of the Friends, observed that “in response to a FCWB legal case last year a Federal Court Judge held that Minister Ritz broke the law by introducing legislation to destroy our Canadian Wheat Board. The Harper government has defied the courts to implement this legislation.”

Stewart Wells, one of the farmer-elected Directors of the Wheat Board dismissed under the illegal legislation, said “we have a broadly based group supporting this action including 8 of the 10 deposed farmer-elected CWB Directors, the Producer Car Shippers of Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, various civil society groups, the National Farmers’ Union and others who are affected by the changes Ottawa has imposed on farmers.” “Rejecting this legislation is about more than the Canadian Wheat Board, it is about due process and the rule of law itself and that affects everyone in Canada” observed Anders Bruun, the Friends legal counsel.

Laurence Nicholson, an irrigation farmer at Seven Persons, Alberta concluded “we have called on the Government of Canada to respect the law and stop their bullying of farmers. Instead they have chosen to break the law, so now it falls to us to give the courts the opportunity to assert the rule of law and redress this injustice.”