National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal)
March 12, 2024
This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "National Corn Growers Assn v Canada" Import Tribunal – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR(October 2023)
National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 SCR 1324 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review and statutory interpretation.
National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal)
APPEAL from National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal), [1989] 2 FCA 517
Ruling
Appeal dismissed
Court membership
Reasons given
Majority
Gonthier J, joined by La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and McLachlin JJ
Concurrence
Wilson J, joined by Dickson CJ and Lamer J
Sopinka and Cory JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
The Canadian Import Tribunal conducted an inquiry of the importation of grain from the US under s.42 of the Special Import Measures Act. The Tribunal found that the subsidization of grain imports were potentially the cause of "material injury" to the production in Canada.
The National Corn Growers Association applied for judicial review of the decision. They argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine potential injuries under the Act.
Justice Gonthier, applying the analysis in Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp. 1979 found that the standard under which the decision can be reviewed is one of patent unreasonableness. In his view, the Tribunal could indeed consider the issue of potential injury. The existence of a privative clause was sufficient to accord the Tribunal deference in review. He emphasized that the reviewing court is not to determine the correct answer with which to compare the Tribunal's decision in order to determine the reasonableness of it.
Justice Wilson, in concurrence, considered meaning of the advent of the "pragmatic and functional approach" found in the NB Liquor case and in U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault, 1988. Underlying it was the principle of the rule of law. In contrast to Gonthier, who assessed whether the Tribunal had made a patently unreasonable error with respect to each issue before the Court, Wilson wrote that a proper application of the approach required a more general assessment of the Tribunal's decision. The court's job, she noted, was to determine whether the Tribunal had made a patently unreasonable error in the sense that it exceeded the statutory mandate given to it by Parliament.
national, corn, growers, assn, canada, import, tribunal, this, article, relies, largely, entirely, single, source, relevant, discussion, found, talk, page, please, help, improve, this, article, introducing, citations, additional, sources, find, sources, nation. This article relies largely or entirely on a single source Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources Find sources National Corn Growers Assn v Canada Import Tribunal news newspapers books scholar JSTOR October 2023 National Corn Growers Assn v Canada Import Tribunal 1990 2 SCR 1324 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on judicial review and statutory interpretation National Corn Growers Assn v Canada Import Tribunal Supreme Court of CanadaHearing 29 March 1990 Judgment 8 November 1990Full case nameAmerican Farm Bureau Federation v Canadian Import TribunalCitations 1990 2 SCR 1324Docket No 21366 21368 1 Prior historyAPPEAL from National Corn Growers Assn v Canada Import Tribunal 1989 2 FCA 517RulingAppeal dismissedCourt membershipReasons givenMajorityGonthier J joined by La Forest L Heureux Dube and McLachlin JJConcurrenceWilson J joined by Dickson CJ and Lamer JSopinka and Cory JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case The Canadian Import Tribunal conducted an inquiry of the importation of grain from the US under s 42 of the Special Import Measures Act The Tribunal found that the subsidization of grain imports were potentially the cause of material injury to the production in Canada The National Corn Growers Association applied for judicial review of the decision They argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine potential injuries under the Act Justice Gonthier applying the analysis in Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp 1979 found that the standard under which the decision can be reviewed is one of patent unreasonableness In his view the Tribunal could indeed consider the issue of potential injury The existence of a privative clause was sufficient to accord the Tribunal deference in review He emphasized that the reviewing court is not to determine the correct answer with which to compare the Tribunal s decision in order to determine the reasonableness of it Justice Wilson in concurrence considered meaning of the advent of the pragmatic and functional approach found in the NB Liquor case and in U E S Local 298 v Bibeault 1988 Underlying it was the principle of the rule of law In contrast to Gonthier who assessed whether the Tribunal had made a patently unreasonable error with respect to each issue before the Court Wilson wrote that a proper application of the approach required a more general assessment of the Tribunal s decision The court s job she noted was to determine whether the Tribunal had made a patently unreasonable error in the sense that it exceeded the statutory mandate given to it by Parliament See also editList of Supreme Court of Canada casesExternal links editFull text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUM and CanLIIReferences edit 21368 SCC Case Information Docket 21366 21368 Supreme Court of Canada nbsp nbsp This article about Canadian law is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title National Corn Growers Assn v Canada Import Tribunal amp oldid 1182733707, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
