On January 22, 2021, the BC Supreme Court released reasons for judgment striking a judicial review petition which sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the BC Vegetable Commission to regulate the interprovincial sale of potatoes, and the jurisdiction of the Farm Industry Review Board to supervise and hear appeals from the Vegetable Commission.
The case involved a grower and marketer of regulated potatoes attempting to have the Court overturn multiple decisions of the Vegetable Commission, while those orders were under appeal to the Farm Industry Review Board and the Board was in the midst of regulatory reforms. The Review Board and the Commission applied to strike the petition on a number of grounds, including that it was an abuse of process.
The Court agreed that allowing the judicial review to proceed while the Review Board’s processes were ongoing was an abuse of process, and that the petitioners had an adequate remedy through their outstanding appeals to the Review Board. The Court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Review Board did not have standing to bring the application to strike, citing the Board’s helpful submissions in determining the issues in the application.
This important decision affirms the deference the courts must show to a legislature’s decision to have certain disputes resolved before administrative tribunals, and that tribunals are entitled to appear in Court to defend the jurisdiction the legislature has granted them.
Mark Underhill and Kate Phipps of Arvay Finlay acted as counsel for the Farm Industry Review Board. The reasons may be found here: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/20/21/2020BCSC2138.htm