WINNIPEG – After mountains of paper, weeks of testimony, days of arguments and millions of dollars, a constitutional challenge of the Canadian Wheat Board Act ended Dec. 13.
All that’s left is the ruling on the case from Federal Court of Canada judge Francis Muldoon, who said he’ll deliver it “in due course” in the new year.
Lawyers for the government and the Alberta Barley Commission, the Western Barley Growers Association and 21 prairie farmers spent all of last week delivering their constitutional arguments to Muldoon.
Lawyers for the farmers urged him to look at the effect of the act as well as the act itself.
Read Also
Ag in Motion innovation awards showcase top 2025 ag technology
The 2025 Ag in Motion Innovation Awards celebrated winners across five categories: agronomics, agtech, business solutions, environmental sustainability and equipment.
Keith Groves, Loren Halyn and Bryan Newton argued the act infringes on the right to freedom of association and movement in how farmers sell their grain.
The team argued the law treats prairie wheat and barley growers differently from farmers who grow other crops or who live in other parts of Canada, thus infringing on their right to freedom from discrimination.
“This case isn’t about price, it is about opportunity,” said Groves, explaining that farmers aren’t averse to being regulated, but want a less intrusive system.
Groves said compulsory pooling under the wheat board monopoly strikes at the heart of Canadian democracy, adding farmers don’t have democratic input into the way their wheat and barley are sold by the board.
Halyn said supply management groups have survived constitutional challenges because farmers voted to introduce them. He said wheat and barley growers did not have that opportunity.
But crown lawyers Brian Hay and Glenn Joyal argued the act does not infringe on farmers’ rights and freedoms.
“We say they don’t get past first base,” said Hay.
They said the plaintiffs want Muldoon to interpret the charter more broadly than past cases have done, including cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
“Much of their case involves imagination rather than law in fact,” said Hay.
The government lawyers argued the charter doesn’t protect economic rights such as the freedom to maximize profits, freedom to contract or the right to own property.
Hay said while the farmers may have legitimate complaints, their lawyers didn’t show the complaints fit into the charter.
He argued the farmers enjoy many freedoms and advantages under the current grain marketing system, and stressed that a dual marketing system for wheat and barley wouldn’t work. Under an open market for the crops, the farmers would lose price premiums and other advantages provided by the board, he said.
Hay urged Muldoon to consider the interests of farmers who like and rely on the wheat board monopoly when he makes his decision.
At the end of the arguments, Muldoon said the case was interesting and he expects the issues to continue to be interesting.
“I imagine I’m not the last judge to pronounce on it (the case),” Muldoon said.
