"Playing in the mud"

Here are the opening paragraphs from a recent Saskatchewan Provincial Court decision about off-road recreation in farm country:

A favourite pastime for many people living in rural, northern Saskatchewan is off-roading or “playing in the mud” as the accused [...] likes to call it. That is, at least until he found himself stuck in the mud and charged with impaired driving, over .08 and resisting a peace officer on May 20, 2012.

The accused had been out “playing in the mud” with his buddies on a neighbour’s back forty the afternoon of May 20, 2012. This was a common form of recreation and sporting event for them. He had specifically purchased his Ford F-250 3/4 ton truck for this purpose. He had the truck lifted and placed large mud tires on it. The object of the game was to see how far out in the mud and bush they could take their trucks and get back out without getting stuck. The accused acknowledged that he faired quite poorly that day.

He had consumed two or three beers that afternoon while out 4x4ing with his friends. He then went for supper with a friend and after supper, drove to Smeaton, Saskatchewan for a house party. The accused did not like driving his 4x4 truck with its larger, more aggressive and expensive tires on the pavement as it tends to shred them. So, along the way he drove in and out of ditches alongside the road and into farmers' fields tearing around a little bit, until he eventually ventured into one ditch too deep and ended up getting stuck in the mud and water around 8:00 p.m. that evening.

In the end, the accused was found not guilty of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and of operating a motor vehicle while over .08 blood alcohol.  He was found guilty of resisting arrest.

Read the decision at: R v Brown.

Farmer recovers damages from trucker for fertilizer contamination of canola

The Provincial Court of Saskatchewan has ruled in favour of a farmer who claimed damages against a trucking firm after a load of his canola was discounted by a feed processor due to fertilizer contamination.  There were five loads of canola being trucked to Cargill.  The fourth load was rejected because it was contaminated with fertilizer.  The canola then had to be sold to the feed processor at a discount.

The issue in the case was this: was there proof on a balance of probabilities that the trucking company contaminated the fourth load of canola taken from the Plaintiff's farm?  The Court found that there was proof.  The Court rejected a claim that the contamination came from a fertilizer bin on the Plaintiff's farm.  The farmer was granted judgment in the amount of $5,936.68.

Read the decision at: Zuchkan v Biggar Transport (2006) Ltd.

Sask. Court rules husband's seed and chemical debt can be set off against payment to wife for grain

A Judge of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan has ruled that a farm supply company was justified in setting off a husband's debt owing for seed and chemical against a payment to be made to his wife for grain.  Denise Korpan had sold feed barley to Parrish and Heimbecker Ltd., and the company deducted from the payment to Ms. Korpan the amount her husband owed for seed and chemical.  She sued the company alleging there was no right to set off the husband's debt and alleging that the debt was not as much as was deducted.

Ms. Korpan, the Plaintiff, and her husband, Ed Korpan, are farmers running a mixed farming operation.  They have never incorporated their farming operation. Initially they carried on as a family run farm, however some 12 years ago, at their accountant’s suggestion, they divided the responsibilities in their farming operation. The Plaintiff now looks after the cattle portion of the farming operation while her husband is responsible for the grain portion of the operation. Both have knowledge of what the other is doing and make decisions about the farming operation together, but both own farmland and farm assets in their own names. Even though certain machinery and/or vehicles are owned by one of them, the other can use the machinery or vehicles if necessary.

In February, 2008, Norman Cobb, a sales representative for the Defendant, Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd., met with the Korpans at their farm. At this meeting, Ed Korpan filled out a credit application with the Defendant which was later approved. The Plaintiff did not sign the credit application, but was present when her husband signed it and took an active role in the discussions surrounding it. In the course of filling out the application, Mr. Cobb confirmed with them that they ran a family farm. Nothing was said about them running separate farming operations. In the 2008 crop year, Ed Korpan purchased canola seed and chemical from the Defendant on credit. The Plaintiff was aware that he had done this although she did not recall seeing the actual contract. This was not out of the ordinary as Ed signed all of the grain related contracts on behalf of the family.

In order to decide the set off issue, the Judge had to determine if the Plaintiff and her husband were operating the farm as a partnership or if they were each running their own farming operation. The Defendant company argued that it was former while the Plaintiff was adamant that her and her husband were each sole proprietors of separate farming operations.  The Judge found that the Plaintiff had not satisfied the Court on a balance of probabilities that she and her husband ran separate farming operations.  The evidence established the contrary - that they were engaged in a partnership.  Under the Partnership Act, "every partner in a firm is liable jointly with the other partners for all debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he/she is a partner...".  On this basis, the Defendant was entitled to set the husband's debt off against the wife's sale of barley (i.e. set off the parternship's debt against the payment to the partnership for the barley).

Read the decision at: Korpan v Parrish and Heimbecker Ltd.

Saskatchewan farmer acquitted of Stray Animals Act charges

A Saskatchewan farmer has been acquitted by the Provincial Court of three charges under the Stray Animals Act for "allowing his cattle to run unlawfully at large".  The Court found in the end that the farmer had made out the defence of due diligence.

The Court accepted the evidence of a neighbour that on August 31, 2010, she was in her house, when suddenly five or six bulls came into her yard, from all directions, and a couple of them started fighting.  Being afraid, she called the police, and a complaint ensued.  She said that either she or the police phoned the farmer to come and get the bulls.  The neighbour also stated that the cattle got into an organic alfalfa field, which her son was farming for her.  She made a complaint about the August 31, 2010 incident, as well as two subsequent incidents of the same sort.

In his defence, the farmer presented evidence of his general practices, including the maintenance of fencing.  He argued that he had exercised due diligence by checking his fences twice a week, and repairing breaks whenever they were located.  The Court found that the farmer's fencing was good and substantial, well-built and well-maintained.  In the end, the Court agreed that the farmer had exercised due diligence and was not guilty of the strict liability offences under the Act:

The test ... is whether or not Mr. Potoreyko has satisfied me, on a balance of probabilities, that he took all reasonable steps to avoid the doing of the prohibited act.  I am satisfied that he has met that test.  He is not required to guarantee that his cattle will not run at large.  I find that he took reasonable steps, in both patrolling his fence line, and in repairing the fence line when required, to prevent his cattle from running at large.

Read the decision at: R v Potoreyko.