A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has reserved decision on whether two Saskatchewan organic farmers have what it takes to launch a class action lawsuit against the developers of genetically modified canola.
After spending three days last week listening to arguments from legal counsel for organic farmers Larry Hoffman and Dale Beaudoin and counter-arguments from lawyers for Monsanto Canada and Bayer CropScience, justice Gene-Ann Smith deferred her decision.
For the case to be certified, it must meet five criteria of the Class Actions Act of Saskatchewan. Monsanto Canada spokesperson Trish Jordan is optimistic the judge will find the organic case falls short.
Read Also
European wheat production makes big recovery
EU crop prospects are vastly improved, which could mean fewer canola and durum imports from Canada.
“She (Smith) had some concerns with pretty much every one of the criteria put forward,” said Jordan.
Cathy Holtslander, a member of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate’s Organic Agricultural Protection Fund, the group co-ordinating and funding the case, said it is disrespectful toward the court for somebody to guess what the judge is thinking.
Jordan said she is only reiterating what was said in court at one point during deliberations.
One key argument put forward by the biotech companies is that the two Saskatchewan farmers do not meet the criterion of being representative plaintiffs.
“This is really the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate attempting to use these two individuals to put forward a case that they couldn’t put forward on their own,” said Jordan.
A second key argument is that there is no merit to the claim that 850 organic farmers share a common purpose in the lawsuit, another criterion of a class action suit.
According to affidavits filed with the court, there have been no more than 20 farmers producing certified organic canola in any given year between 1990 and 2001.
Another piece of evidence shows only five of 550 SOD members responded to a newsletter asking if they had any issues with GM canola pertinent to the lawsuit.
“Small stories speak volumes. For the plaintiffs to suggest there is a large class of organic farmers who share a common purpose in a lawsuit has no evidentiary base, and more importantly, is contrary to their own evidence,” said Monsanto in a memorandum of fact and law filed with the court.
Holtslander said canola has been contaminated by GM material to the extent that organic farmers can no longer grow it.
In addition, all organic farmers have to deal with Roundup Ready and Liberty Link volunteer GM canola plants appearing in other crops.
Those are reasons why everybody shares a common liability issue with the developers of GM canola, she said.
“We’ve got 850 certified organic growers who are having to deal with the costs of volunteer canola in their fields and who have had the opportunity to grow canola taken away from them,” said Holtslander.
A key point in the plaintiffs’ case is the separation of liability from damages, she said.
Liability issues are the common issues that need to be tried. Individual damages would be determined through another legal process.
Jordan said the judge’s decision isn’t expected soon.
