SASKATOON – Nearly three years after it happened, the Saskatchewan government’s 1992 decision to change GRIP is scheduled to come under legal scrutiny.
An examination for discovery has been slated for Feb. 1-2 in a lawsuit brought by two groups of farmers against the government and the province’s crop insurance corporation.
Lawyers from both sides will examine several farmers involved in the lawsuits to find out what evidence will be presented if the case goes to trial.
The two groups of farmers, one from the Prince Albert area and one from the Melville area, say the province made changes to the Gross Revenue Insurance Program in March 1992 without proper notice. They want retroactive payments for 1992 based on 1991 GRIP rules.
Read Also
Agri-business and farms front and centre for Alberta’s Open Farm Days
Open Farm Days continues to enjoy success in its 14th year running, as Alberta farms and agri-businesses were showcased to increase awareness on how food gets to the dinner plate.
The Melville case is a class action suit launched on behalf of all farmers who had GRIP contracts at the time. The other seeks damages for 386 farmers who are paying for the court challenge.
The crop insurance corporation says it met all of its legal obligations to contract holders and because it extended the deadline for dropping out, farmers actually received more notice than required. The government says it had no contracts with farmers and so is not liable for damages.
Province acted illegally
Wayne Bacon, a Kinistino area farmer and spokesperson for the Prince Albert group, said he was encouraged by the outcome of a similar dispute in Manitoba. That province recently decided to pay $5.6 million to lentil growers after a provincial court of appeal ruled the province acted illegally when it reduced their GRIP coverage in April 1992.
“We’re pretty sure we can win the dispute over whether the province broke a contract with us,” he said.
A key difference in the two cases is that the Saskatchewan government passed a law which deemed that it did not miss the deadline and specifically prohibited any legal challenge of its actions.
The farmers are challenging that law on constitutional grounds, saying it is contrary to the rule of law and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The province denies that and says the law in question was legally enacted by the legislature.
