The legal battle over Saskatchewan’s Gross Revenue Insurance Plan may not be over yet.
A Court of Queen’s Bench judge last week threw out a lawsuit filed by a group of farmers seeking damages for changes the government made to GRIP in 1992.
Judge Robert Laing said the government acted in the public interest when it unilaterally changed the GRIP contracts and then passed a law saying what it had done was legal.
But Wayne Bacon, a Kinistino-area farmer and spokesperson for the 386 farmers named in the suit, said the decision will likely be appealed.
Read Also
Squid fertilizer draws interest at Ag In Motion
GreenFlow says its Squid Juice might elicit a smile or chuckle, but insists the fertilizer and its benefits are for real.
“I would say what we’re going to be doing is appealing,” he said in an interview from his farm the day after the decision was handed down.
Some good points
One encouraging sign, he said, is that despite the negative ruling, the judge in his 64-page judgment seemed to agree with many of the arguments put forward by the farmers.
The final decision on an appeal will await consultations with the group’s lawyer and an assessment of whether the farmers named in the original suit want to continue.
He said the group may ask for financial support from other farmers to help pay for an appeal. While the group is seeking damages only for the 386 producers named in the suit, supporters have said the government would be hard-pressed not to compensate all 48,000 GRIP contract holders if the suit was successful.
At a seven-day trial in Saskatoon in April, lawyers for the farmers argued the New Democratic Party government breached legally binding contracts when it changed terms of GRIP without giving proper notice. They wanted the government to pay damages equal to the payments farmers would have received if the 1991 rules had remained in place for 1992.
They also wanted the court to declare invalid a law passed by the Saskatchewan legislature that said changes to GRIP were legal and denied farmers the right to sue or collect damages.
Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. lawyers said the changes were authorized by the legislation, and farmers were advised through the press prior to the March 15 deadline that the changes were to be made.
Lawyers for the government argued governments have the right to pass laws changing contracts and a newly elected government shouldn’t be bound by decisions taken by its predecessor.
In his ruling, Laing said the provincial government did not cancel the GRIP contracts, but rather amended them in order to continue providing assistance to farmers while at the same time reducing the government’s financial exposure. The changes saved the province $17 million in 1992.
“All revenue insurance contract holders in the year 1992 still received a net benefit from participation in the program based on the new area price support system,” the judge said.
He agreed the changes produced winners and losers, with many farmers receiving substantially less than they would have under the old rules.
Interest of the majority
But Laing also found the government acted in the broader public interest and therefore the new GRIP is constitutional.
“There is nothing in the evidence that suggests the government of Saskatchewan was acting other than in the interest of agricultural producers in taking the steps that it did,” he said.
The judge acknowledged his decision might be appealed and reversed on constitutional grounds, and so devised a formula that should be used to compensate farmers if they eventually win the case.
He calculated that Bacon would be entitled to receive an additional $37,501 and fellow Kinistino-area farmer Gary Svenkeson $22,145. They received 1992 GRIP payments of $19,170 and $11,950 respectively.
