Allis Chalmers
Showing posts with label PEI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PEI. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Crow killing allowed at PEI farm
Click here to read the story: CBC News - Prince Edward Island - Crow killing allowed at farm
Monday, March 8, 2010
Creditors and CAIS payments
Government contributions under the former Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program (CAIS) are not assignable to another party by agreement. For that reason, a farmer entitled to payments under the program could not grant a security interest in a CAIS payment. However, in PEI at least, it was standard practice where a farmer was indebted and wished to make use of his or her interest in a CAIS account to provide a Letter of Direction by which the government agency involved would forward to a creditor the funds otherwise payable to the farmer.
The Court of Appeal in PEI recently decided a case between two competing creditors looking to lay claim to CAIS payments owing to a potato farming corporation called Rural Realty. A PEI Crown Corporation called P.E.I. Lending Agency loaned money to Rural Realty and, as a condition of the loan, required Rural Realty to execute a Letter of Direction requiring the proceeds of CAIS to be sent to it directly. In 2004, Rural Realty owed its creditors over $2 million. It was decided, however, that it was in the best interests of the Lending Agency and a crop input supplier called McCain Produce (also a creditor) that a crop be planted that year. The three parties, the creditors and Rural Realty, entered into an agreement whereby the Lending Agency agreed, among other things, "that McCain shall rank in priority to the Lending Agency with respect to one-half (50%) of all receivables/proceeds generated by the 2004 potato crop".
The question on appeal was whether the CAIS payment to be made to Rural Realty, which was to be directed to the Lending Agency, constituted a "receivable" or "proceeds" of the 2004 potato crop. On application to a lower court, McCain had been successful in obtaining a 50% interest in the CAIS payment. The Lending Agency appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The 2004 CAIS payment to Rural Realty was $690,000. Therefore, $345,000 was at stake in the appeal.
The judge hearing the original application decided that the CAIS payment did constitute proceeds of the 2004 crop because, but for the planting of the crop, no payment would have been made under CAIS. However, the Court of Appeal did not agree that this relationship between the crop and the CAIS payment meant that the CAIS funds were proceeds of the crop. The CAIS funds were not traceable to the proceeds of the sale of the potato crop, and were based on a formula for calculating income over a period of time.
Also, the Court of Appeal found that the parties involved, the Lending Agency and McCain Produce, were sophisticated business entities and, if they had intended to split the CAIS proceeds, they would have done so explicitly in the agreement with Rural Realty.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, giving the Lending Agency the full $690,000 CAIS payment.
Read the decision at: PEI Lending Agency v. McCain Produce Inc.
The Court of Appeal in PEI recently decided a case between two competing creditors looking to lay claim to CAIS payments owing to a potato farming corporation called Rural Realty. A PEI Crown Corporation called P.E.I. Lending Agency loaned money to Rural Realty and, as a condition of the loan, required Rural Realty to execute a Letter of Direction requiring the proceeds of CAIS to be sent to it directly. In 2004, Rural Realty owed its creditors over $2 million. It was decided, however, that it was in the best interests of the Lending Agency and a crop input supplier called McCain Produce (also a creditor) that a crop be planted that year. The three parties, the creditors and Rural Realty, entered into an agreement whereby the Lending Agency agreed, among other things, "that McCain shall rank in priority to the Lending Agency with respect to one-half (50%) of all receivables/proceeds generated by the 2004 potato crop".
The question on appeal was whether the CAIS payment to be made to Rural Realty, which was to be directed to the Lending Agency, constituted a "receivable" or "proceeds" of the 2004 potato crop. On application to a lower court, McCain had been successful in obtaining a 50% interest in the CAIS payment. The Lending Agency appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The 2004 CAIS payment to Rural Realty was $690,000. Therefore, $345,000 was at stake in the appeal.
The judge hearing the original application decided that the CAIS payment did constitute proceeds of the 2004 crop because, but for the planting of the crop, no payment would have been made under CAIS. However, the Court of Appeal did not agree that this relationship between the crop and the CAIS payment meant that the CAIS funds were proceeds of the crop. The CAIS funds were not traceable to the proceeds of the sale of the potato crop, and were based on a formula for calculating income over a period of time.
Also, the Court of Appeal found that the parties involved, the Lending Agency and McCain Produce, were sophisticated business entities and, if they had intended to split the CAIS proceeds, they would have done so explicitly in the agreement with Rural Realty.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, giving the Lending Agency the full $690,000 CAIS payment.
Read the decision at: PEI Lending Agency v. McCain Produce Inc.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Potato farmer sued for $5M for unauthorized use of the Dakota Pearl variety
CBC News - Prince Edward Island - Potato farmer sued for $5M
CBC News is reporting that Lyndale Farms in P.E.I. has been sued by Real Potatoes Limited for allegedly having grown its Dakota Pearl variety of potato without authorization in 2008 and 2009. Lyndale has yet to file a defence to the action in which Real Potatoes claims $5 million in damages.
Although details of the lawsuit aren't yet available, the case is probably similar to actions commenced by Monsanto against farmers growing Roundup Ready crops without authorization.
Here are links to several court decisions in actions commenced by Monsanto for patent infringement by farmers:
Monsanto v. Rivett 2009 Federal Court re: Roundup Ready soybeans:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2009/2009fc317/2009fc317.html
Monsanto v. Janssens 2009 Federal Court re: Roundup Ready soybeans:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2009/2009fc318/2009fc318.html
Monsanto v. Wouters 2007 Federal Court re: Roundup Ready soybeans:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc625/2007fc625.html
Monsanto v. Percy Schmeiser 2004 Supreme Court of Canada re: Roundup Ready Canola:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
CBC News is reporting that Lyndale Farms in P.E.I. has been sued by Real Potatoes Limited for allegedly having grown its Dakota Pearl variety of potato without authorization in 2008 and 2009. Lyndale has yet to file a defence to the action in which Real Potatoes claims $5 million in damages.
Although details of the lawsuit aren't yet available, the case is probably similar to actions commenced by Monsanto against farmers growing Roundup Ready crops without authorization.
Here are links to several court decisions in actions commenced by Monsanto for patent infringement by farmers:
Monsanto v. Rivett 2009 Federal Court re: Roundup Ready soybeans:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2009/2009fc317/2009fc317.html
Monsanto v. Janssens 2009 Federal Court re: Roundup Ready soybeans:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2009/2009fc318/2009fc318.html
Monsanto v. Wouters 2007 Federal Court re: Roundup Ready soybeans:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2007/2007fc625/2007fc625.html
Monsanto v. Percy Schmeiser 2004 Supreme Court of Canada re: Roundup Ready Canola:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html
Labels:
farmer,
Monsanto,
patent infringement,
PEI,
potatoes,
Roundup Ready
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Eastern P.E.I. says no to wind turbines
CBC News - Prince Edward Island - Eastern P.E.I. says no to wind turbines
The P.E.I. community of Eastern Kings has voted against further wind turbine development. At a meeting last Tuesday night, the local council held a secret ballot vote in response to a proposal by PEI Green Energy Inc., which wants to build 28 turbines in the area. About 100 people from the community of 1,000 attended the meeting.
The P.E.I. community of Eastern Kings has voted against further wind turbine development. At a meeting last Tuesday night, the local council held a secret ballot vote in response to a proposal by PEI Green Energy Inc., which wants to build 28 turbines in the area. About 100 people from the community of 1,000 attended the meeting.
Labels:
PEI,
turbine,
wind energy,
wind farm
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
CBC News - Prince Edward Island - Farm fined for excess land holdings
CBC News - Prince Edward Island - Farm fined for excess land holdings
Go the above link to read an interesting story about land holding restrictions in PEI. The Lands Protection Act in PEI places limitations on the amount of land that can be owned and on non-resident ownership of land (see: http://www.irac.pe.ca/document.asp?file=legislation/LandsProtAct.asp). Given the size of the province, one can see why there would be such a limit on aggregate land ownership in addition to the non-resident limitation (which also existed in Saskatchewan).
Go the above link to read an interesting story about land holding restrictions in PEI. The Lands Protection Act in PEI places limitations on the amount of land that can be owned and on non-resident ownership of land (see: http://www.irac.pe.ca/document.asp?file=legislation/LandsProtAct.asp). Given the size of the province, one can see why there would be such a limit on aggregate land ownership in addition to the non-resident limitation (which also existed in Saskatchewan).
Labels:
landowner,
Lands Protection Act,
ownership,
PEI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)