SASKATOON — The Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation and the provincial government have denied breaking any laws when they changed the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan in 1992.
Two groups of farmers have gone to court arguing that the changes were made without proper notice and violated their insurance contracts.
The farmers also say a law prohibiting any court challenge of the changes is unconstitutional and have asked the courts for payments based on the 1991 GRIP rules.
In a statement of defence dated May 26, the corporation says it did nothing illegal. It says the province’s minister of agriculture publicly announced the changes on March 13, 1992, prior to the March 15 deadline alleged by the plaintiffs, and nothing else needed to be done.
Read Also
Man charged after assault at grain elevator
RCMP have charged a 51-year-old Weyburn man after an altercation at the Pioneer elevator at Corinne, Sask. July 22.
Notice not required
“The (crop insurance corporation) specifically denies that it is required to provide prior written notice of contractual amendments to the plaintiffs” and there are no grounds for damages to be assessed, said the legal brief filed in Court of Queen’s Bench in Regina.
It goes on to say that providing notice by March 15 would have given farmers two weeks to opt out of GRIP by the March 31 deadline. In fact, the government delayed that deadline for opting out until July 20, well after full details of the changes had been mailed to all contract holders.
Changes made before seeding
Therefore, “the plaintiffs received notice of 1992 GRIP equal to or greater than the minimum two-week notice period originally contemplated under the individual contracts of insurance,” said the corporation. It added that notice of the changes was made in time for farmers to make their seeding decisions for the 1992 crop.
In a separate statement of defence, the provincial government said it has no contractual relationship with any of the farmers in the case and so is not liable for any damages. It also denies that the law violates the charter of rights and was duly and legally enacted by the provincial legislature.
Wayne Bacon, a Kinistino-area farmer and spokesman for the farmers, said he wasn’t persuaded by the statement of defence: “If they didn’t breach the contracts, why did they pass the legislation” banning court challenges?
The next step in the case is a process called examination for discovery, in which lawyers from both sides interview witnesses and study documents to gather the facts of the case. The plaintiffs will put forward two farmers from each group, with the defendants selecting another from each group.
