Farmer's Odyssey: Prolonged Class Action Proceedings Against Saskatchewan Ministry Of Agriculture Ends In Summary Dismissal

In Holland v Saskatchewan (Ministry of Agriculture), 2017 SKQB 172, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed a class action brought by a group of deer and elk farmers against the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture. The class action alleged damages caused by the Ministry's negligent implementation of a Chronic Wasting Disease monitoring program. The Court of Queen's Bench concluded that the Ministry had statutory immunity for their actions and granted summary dismissal of the class action. The history of the case leading up to the summary dismissal reveals a legal odyssey lasting 13 years and taking the parties all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and back.

Background

A group of game farmers (the "Farmers") refused to register for a federal monitoring program (the "Program") designed to curtail the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease. As a result of their refusal, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture (the "Ministry") downgraded the Farmers' livestock to the lowest certification level - "surveillance" status. The market value of the Farmers' livestock dropped.

The Farmers objected to provisions in the Program that required farmers to indemnify the Ministry for any damages incurred in the course of the monitoring program. The Farmers applied for judicial review of the Program. The indemnification provisions were found to be ultra vires and the court declared that the certification downgrades were invalid.1 This placed the Ministry in a legal dilemma. By this point in time, the regulatory environment had changed and the Ministry no longer had the power to undo the certification downgrades. As a result, the Ministry was unable to implement the judicial decree.

The Class Action

The Farmers started a class action against the Ministry to recover the financial damages resulting from the invalid certification downgrades. The Farmers' statement of claim (the "Claim") could be broadly summarized as alleging two acts of negligence on the part of the government:

Requiring the Farmers to enter into a broad indemnification agreement with the Ministry as part of the Program; and Downgrading the herd status of the Farmers who objected to the Program. The Ministry moved to strike the Claim. The motions judge denied the Ministry's motion, and the Ministry appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.2 The Court of Appeal followed Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and concluded that a breach of statutory duty is insufficient on its own to ground a...