Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 171
[668] This reliance by the Defendant upon the decision in A.O. Farms is misplaced. In Renova
Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Wheat Board (2006), 286 F.T.R. 201 (F.C.). Mr. Justice Blanchard
explained the limited relevance of A.O. Farms at para. 46 as follows:
46 The Defendants submit that the jurisprudence reveals no
analogous categories where proximity between the Wheat Board and
the Plaintiffs is identified. The Defendants point to Riske, above; M-
Jay Farms Enterprises Ltd. v. Canadian Wheat Board, [1997]
M.J. No. 462; 118 Man. R. (2d) 258; 149 W.A.C. 258 (C.A.); and
A.O. Farms Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al.,
[2000] F.T.R. uned. 510; [2000] F.C.J. No. 1771 (T.D.), as
establishing that there is no private law duty of care in the context of
the Wheat Board and the Act. In my opinion, these cases can be
distinguished from the circumstances in the present case. In A.O.
Farms, while Mr. Justice Hugessen held that there was no proximity
between "the government and the governed", the matter before the
Court concerned a legislative decision by the Minister and not an
operational decision of the Wheat Board. Further, I note that neither
in Riske nor M-Jay Farms did the Court conclude that no proximity
existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant Wheat Board…
(Emphasis in original)
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[669] Further, the Defendant submitted that the relevant statutory schemes as set out in the Act,
the Territorial Lands Act and the Yukon Timber Regulations do not create a private law duty in
favour of the Plaintiffs but rather that these are legislative schemes that apply to the public at large.
The Defendant relied on the decisions in Cooper and Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada,
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 562, in support of this argument.
[670] The Defendant is misguided in relying on the decisions in Cooper and Edwards to argue a
lack of proximity between the parties to this action.