EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE |
Aliments Dorchester Inc. v. Canada (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)
A-87-01
2002 FCA 286, Nadon J.A.
4/7/02
16 pp.
Appeal from Trial Division decision ((2001), 199 F.T.R. 288) dismissing appellant's application for judicial review of two decisions by respondent refusing to issue appellant import allocation for eviscerated chicken free of duty, under Export and Import Permits Act, s. 6.2(2), for years 1999, 2000--Whether Pinard J. right in finding appellant not entitled to import allocation requested for 1999 and 2000 under Allocation Method Order (Chicken and Chicken Products), s. 2(1)(b)--Appellant business operating chicken slaughter and processing plants--By Order made under Act, s. 6.2(2)(a), Minister established method for allocating quantities for different types of allocations available, including one for which appellant made applications rejected by Minister, namely, share of eviscerated chicken imported to Canada for purpose of processing into chicken products --Dispute dealing entirely with what Order describes as "chicken-based products", in other words, chicken products composed of less than 87% of chicken--Since these chicken-based products not appearing on Import Control List, can enter Canada from United States duty-free--By decisions dated July 29, 1999, and January 26, 2000, Minister denied appellant shares sought--Refusal based solely on fact since Aliments Dorchester ceased commercial operations, appellant could henceforth no longer claim appellant processor of chicken-based products--Relying on Act, s. 6.2(1), (2) and Order, s. 2(1)(b), Pinard J. concluded since appellant not processor of chicken-based products within meaning of s. 2(1)(b), appellant not entitled to allocation applied for--Only issue concerning interpretation of Order, s. 2(1)(b), providing "an applicant who is a processor of chicken-based products . . . shall receive a share . . . that is equal. . . ."--Right to import allocations under s. 2(1)(b) determined by status of applicant, that is, processor of chicken-based products, whereas amount of import allocation to be allocated determined by amount of chicken used in applicant's production during previous year, that is, reference period-- S. 2(1)(a) conferring right to import allocation on person holding historical import quota--To be entitled to that allocation, applicant must hold historical import quota and amount of allocation equal to historical import quota-- Qualifications relating to applicant requirements that must necessarily be satisfied to be entitled to import allocation and, in case of s. 2(2), to be able to elect another allocation--Such applicant must be able to satisfy requirements of s. 2(1)(b), not only at time of application for allocation, but more particularly at time allocation sought granted--Given Aliments Dorchester had ceased operations on January 31, 1999, appellant not processor of chicken-based products at time of application for import allocations, had never been such a processor and had no intention of becoming one, can be no doubt respondent entirely justified in denying appellant import allocations --Pinard J. did not commit error in holding appellant not entitled to import allocations for 1999 and 2000 --Appeal dismissed--Export and Import Permits Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E-19, s. 6.2 (as enacted by S.C. 1994, c. 47, s. 106)--Allocation Method Order (Chicken and Chicken Products), SOR/96-388, s. 2(1), (2).