Eleven cattle producers who have claimed ownership of almost 7,000 head of cattle in a central Alberta feedlot now in receivership will learn March 4 if the animals belong to them or the bank.
Court of Queen’s Bench justice
B. E. Romaine ruled cattle producers had until Feb. 25 to submit their proof of ownership papers and documents to the Calgary-based receiver Deloitte & Touche.
The receiver has until March 4 to determine who owned the 6,300 cattle in the feedlot when it took over.
The cattle were pledged as security to CIBC banks by Bonnett Farms feedlot before the feedlot was placed into receivership Jan. 5, said Vic Kroeger, senior vice-president of Deloitte & Touche.
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
“At no time prior to the date of receivership, other than identifying an arrangement with the feeder association, did the Bonnetts ever say there were any third party cattle there. They said they were always their cattle. So the bank assumed all the cattle were theirs,” said Kroeger.
The feedlot owed the bank and other creditors about $38 million when it was placed into receivership.
The feedlot was hard hit when the border closed with the discovery of Canada’s first domestic BSE case two years ago. The feedlot lost about $15 million when the mature cows in the lot became worthless. The feedlot also made headlines this winter when 200 cattle died after a feed mixup when the receiver took over.
Kroeger said if Deloitte & Touche is satisfied with the information from the producers, it will release cattle, which it has already done with one party, or may ask for further information. It could also disallow the claim.
Any of the parties in the dispute have seven days to appeal the decision to court, which would then decide the ownership of the cattle.
If the receiver makes a decision in favour of the claimants, the bank may claim priority on the cattle, said Kroeger. “There may be a dispute between those two parties outside the receivership.”
Before the cattle are released, the claimants must post security to cover the costs of feeding, branding and administration fees incurred since the receiver took over Jan. 5.
Blair Vold of Vold, Jones and Vold auction in Ponoka, Alta., who had about 200 cattle in the feedlot, said he feels confident that the paperwork he submitted to the receiver will prove his ownership of the cattle.
“We’ve all put our proof of ownership in and we’re basically sitting here waiting for what the outcome is going to be with the receiver,” said Vold.
“I think it’s going to be positive. It looks like they’re going to recognize the paperwork that went in there.”
After the initial court date, some producers were frustrated that their brands weren’t enough proof of their ownership. Instead they had to submit additional paperwork.
“To go in and say these are my branded cattle, I got my brand on them, I should get them, doesn’t hold much water when you’re getting into court,” said Vold.
“It’s an identifier, it doesn’t necessarily mean you own the cattle.”
David Moss, chief operating officer with Livestock Identification Services, said a brand is a tool that identifies cattle, but it is not the final proof of ownership.
“The irony is the cattle that have the brands are probably best positioned to prove their ownership,” said Moss, who is working with producers and the receiver to help get the cattle back to their owners.
