A-110-76
William H. Gray (Applicant)
v.
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Urie, Le Dain and Ryan JJ.
Toronto, November 3, 1976.
Judicial review—Application to set aside decision of
respondent refusing applicant licence to engage in interprovin-
cial trade in eggs—Whether applicant had sufficient notice of
issue on his application—Whether reasonable apprehension of
bias on part of Agency—Application dismissed—Federal
Court Act, s. 28.
Burnbrae Farms Ltd. v. Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
[1976] 2 F.C. 217, applied.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Herman Turkstra for applicant.
François Lemieux for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Turkstra & Dore, Hamilton, for applicant.
Herridge, Tolmie, Ottawa, for respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
URIE J.: On this section 28 application to review
and set aside a decision of the Canadian Egg
Marketing Agency refusing the application of the
applicant for a licence to engage in interprovincial
trade in eggs, the applicant based his submission
on four grounds:
1. The Agency's failure to advise the applicant
of the contents of the material placed before it
in the deliberation of its members leading to the
refusal to issue the licence;
2. The Agency's use in these deliberations of
alleged irrelevant, untrue and misleading
material;
3. A reasonable apprehension of bias existing
because one of the members of the Agency
present at the meeting during which the applica
tion for licence was dealt with was in Abe egg
grading station business in Ontario, as was the
applicant, and thus possibly was a competitor
who might be biased against the applicant; and
4. A reasonable apprehension of bias on the
part of all members of the Agency because of
the applicant's known opposition to the egg mar
keting scheme for which it was responsible.
We are all of the opinion that there is no merit
in these grounds of attack. The applicant was
given sufficient notice of the issue on his applica
tion. Instead of making written submissions to
clarify the facts and his position with respect to
them, as he was invited to do and as he suggested
he would do, he relied on information given orally
by him to employees of the Agency. Under these
circumstances the Agency was under no duty to
provide him with a copy of the report of such
information which was made to it by an employee.
The failure of the company, of which the applicant
was the president and the owner of 94% of its
shares, to comply with the requirements of the law
respecting the levy was certainly a relevant con
sideration as to whether he personally should be
granted a licence. The fact that the chairman of
the Agency was an egg grading station operator, as
well as a producer, was not a ground for reasoned
suspicion of bias which would disqualify him from
participating in the decision. Nor is there any
merit for the reasons given in the decision of this
Court in the Burnbrae Farms Ltd. v. Canadian
Egg Marketing Agency case [1976] 2 F.C. 217, to
the contention that the applicant's opposition to
the legislative scheme gave rise to reasoned suspi
cion of bias that would disqualify the Agency as a
whole from acting on an application by him.
The application, accordingly, will be dismissed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.