The world is watching a legal battle pitting organic growers against the developers of genetically modified canola, says the lawyer representing the plaintiffs.
But lawyers for two biotech companies involved in the dispute say there is nothing to watch other than anti-GM campaigners attempting to use the court system to further their cause.
Last week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal heard arguments for and against a Court of Queen’s Bench ruling that denied two organic farmers the ability to launch a class action lawsuit against Monsanto Canada and Bayer CropScience Inc.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Legal analysts say where the Percy Schmeiser case was all about the rights of biotech companies, the proposed class action suit is all about their obligations.
If the three-judge panel overturns the lower court decision and the proposed class action lawsuit is allowed to proceed, it will be followed with great interest by observers in jurisdictions with similar common law systems, said Terry Zakreski, lawyer for appellants Larry Hoffman and Dale Beaudoin.
“If (Hoffman and Beaudoin) are successful, there will be a precedent for liability for future GM crops,” he said.
Monsanto and Bayer have a different view.
Monsanto said the plaintiffs are just figureheads in a court case that is being driven by the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.
“SOD and the funding organizations are using this lawsuit (and the court system) inappropriately to advance their anti-GMO position,” said the lawyers for Monsanto.
Bayer CropScience shares the view that SOD is driving the litigation through its Organic Agriculture Protection Fund. It said the goals of the organization appear more focused on provoking public debate about GMOs than advancing a claim for compensation.
Hoffman and Beaudoin contend that the lower court judge made numerous errors in her May 11, 2005 decision.
“Our position was that judge (Gene Ann) Smith set the bar too high for us to get over. Applying a more reasonable test would result in us being certified as a class,” said Zakreski.
Derrick Rozdeba, spokesperson for Bayer, said there are five independent criteria that have to be met for a case to be eligible for certification as a class action. Smith ruled that none of the criteria were met.
“Therefore, we have maintained throughout, including at the recent hearing before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, this case was not even close to being suitable for class action status,” he said.
Monsanto Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan said despite failing to launch a class action suit, SOD continues to try and elevate the importance of the case in an effort to raise donations for its cause.
“They are trying to use the courts to put forth a socio-political position about what is the right way to farm and what is the wrong way to farm,” she said.
According to the appellants, the proposed class would comprise 950 farmers, which is all organic farmers certified in Saskatchewan between the time GM canola was introduced and the court case was launched. And they contend the damage caused to that class could exceed $14 million for past and future losses caused by the introduction of GM canola.
Monsanto said that definition is inappropriate as records produced by the plaintiffs show that only 76 individual producers grew organic canola at any point in the 1990-2001 period.
“The class, if any, should not in any manner extend to all organic farmers,” said the company in its court document.
Bayer said production of organic canola peaked in 1999 at 20 farms and pointed out that a 2001 SOD advertisement seeking growers who had problems with GMO contamination generated fewer than five responses.
A decision on the appeal is expected early in the new year.
