Date: 20000626
Docket: A-674-97
EDMONTON, ALBERTA, MONDAY, JUNE 26TH, 2000.
CORAM: ROBERTSON, J.A.
McDONALD, J.A.
SEXTON, J.A.
BETWEEN:
THOMAS RICHARD JACKSON,
Appellant,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent.
Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on Monday, June 26, 2000
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, on Monday, June 26, 2000
REASONS OF THE COURT BY: ROBERTSON J.A.
Date: 20000626
Docket: A-674-97
CORAM: ROBERTSON, J.A.
McDONALD, J.A.
SEXTON, J.A.
BETWEEN:
THOMAS RICHARD JACKSON,
Appellant,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ROBERTSON, J.A.:
[1] At the outset we wish to acknowledge that in his oral presentation, the appellant, who is self-represented, raised several issues not set out in the originating notice of motion, nor raised before the Motions Judge, nor set out in the appellant's memorandum of fact and law which was prepared by his former counsel. For example, the appellant submitted that the Canadian Wheat Board has been breaching the following laws:
| "a) the BNA Act, sections 92(13) and 92(16). |
| b) The Canadian Bill of Rights, section 1(a) |
| c) The CWB Act section 7 |
| d) The Canada Grain Act section 102 |
| e) The Great Commandment, and Deut. 5:19, 20 and 21 |
| f) The Criminal Code of Canada sections 122 and 650" |
[2] Accordingly, we lack the jurisdiction to address such issues. Furthermore, we wish to note that many of the arguments advanced by the appellant are of a policy nature and more amenable to the political forum than the judicial one. Against this background, we shall deal with the substantive issues raised in the appellant's memorandum.
[3] The central issue on this appeal is whether the Motions Judge erred in determining that pedigreed wheat seed is wheat, as defined under the Canada Grain Act, and hence subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. In our respectful view, the Motions Judge did not err in so concluding and, therefore, the appellant was required to obtain an export license with respect to the shipment of such seed to the United States. Specifically, we find that the Motions Judge did not err in holding that the fact that the appellant's pedigreed wheat seed had not been graded under the Canada Grain Act is of no legal consequence.
[4] The other issue raised on this appeal is whether there is an obligation on the Board to purchase pedigreed wheat seed at a purchase price which reflects its "fair value". The respondent maintains that no obligation arises on the facts of this case because the appellant did not offer to sell its seed to the Board and for the reason that the purchase price paid by the Board to producers is, in any event, based on a legislated formula. In our view, there is a more basic reason for refusing to address this issue. Before the Motions Judge, the appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Board to impose a requirement that he obtain a license before exporting pedigreed wheat seed to the United States. It was the decision not to issue a license that gave rise to the judicial review application. Nowhere in the record is mention made of a Board decision refusing to purchase the appellant's pedigreed wheat seed.
[5] For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"J.T. Robertson"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER OF THE TRIAL DIVISION DATED AUGUST 21, 1997, TRIAL DIVISION FILE NO. T-2622-96
DOCKET: A-674-97
STYLE OF CAUSE:
RHOMAS RICHARD JACKSON
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton
DATE OF HEARING: June 26, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Robertson J.A.
DATED: June 26, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Thomas R. Jackson ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Ms. Naomi Goldstein FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Morris A. Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT