Saskatchewan farmers win dispute over hay

On March 15, 2002, Ralph and Beverly Austin sold their farm land and assigned a land lease to the defendant, 101013354 Saskatchewan Ltd.  Lyla Cowan is the sole officer and shareholder of 101013354 Saskatchewan Ltd.  The sale included buildings, some sheds and bushel bins located on the land.  The purchase price was allocated amongst the land sold, the buildings, sheds and bushel bins and leasehold improvements on the leased lands.  This agreement for the sale of land and assignment of lease was in writing and signed by the parties on March 12, 2002.

Prior to March 15, 2002, the Austins had a stack of bales located on the land.  In March 2002, the Austins agreed to sell the bales to Cowan and she agreed to pay them for the hay.

Prior to possession date the Austins came to a verbal agreement in the farm yard with Lyla Cowan to sell her the 182 alfalfa hay bales at $120.00 per ton, 83 slough hay bales at $100.00 per ton and 30 straw hay bales at $20.00 per ton located on the land.  The total purchase price was $21,800.00.  They sent Lyla Cowan a bill of sale for the bales in the sum of $21,800.00 about a year later on March 10, 2003, as they did not want to receive any income from the bales in the taxation year 2002.  Lyla Cowan paid the plaintiffs the sum of $10,000.00 on August 3, 2003.  No other payments have been received.

The Austins sued Cowan in the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan for the balance of the purchase price they claimed was still owing.  The judge found in favour of the Austins, and awarded $9,360 plus costs of $250.  This was slightly less than what had been claimed by the Austins because the judge did not find that there had been a "meeting of the minds" between the parties as to the weight of the bales sold.  The judge ruled the weight per bale to be somewhat less than the Austins had estimated.

Read the decision at: Austin v. Cowan.

Ontario: Small Claims Court Claims Limit now up to $25,000

Effective January 1, 2010, the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court in Ontario has risen to $25,000, exclusive of costs and interest. Prior to 2010, only claims for $10,000 could be brought in the Small Claims Court, which offers a more streamlined and less expensive court process than the Superior Court.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/civil/changes_to_SCC_Jan_2010.asp

Claims that canola seed was defective are going to be difficult

In a recent decision dismissing a claim for damages related to defective canola seed, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench has commented on the difficulties inherent in this type of claim. After finding that Saskatchewan's Consumer Protection Act did not apply to the seed because it had been purchased in Manitoba, Justice M.D. Acton then commented about the number of actions that have been commenced involving alleged defects in the quality of seed. Acton noted, however, that the evidence has been that the many sensitivities of canola seed include: slow germination when seeded in cool damp soil; susceptibility to frost at an early stage; susceptibility to drought and heat at an early stage; inability to emerge through compacted or crusted clay soils caused by heavy rains immediately after seeding; poor competition with weeds at an early stage; susceptibility to disease and insect infestation. In the case at bar, experts for both sides advised that numerous factors other than seed quality may have caused the failure of the seed to produce a viable and acceptable canola crop. That evidence spelled the end for the claim. The Court was unable to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the quality of the seed was the cause of the crop failure alleged.

Negrave v. Pioneer Grain Company Limited, 2009 SKQB 492
http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc/2009/2009skqb492/2009skqb492.html

Raven Damage to Crops not compensable

A claim by a cattle farmer in Manitoba over damage caused to his hay crop by ravens was thrown out of court last November as "frivilous and vexatious". Ravens had pecked holes through the plastic covering over his hay bales, resulting in spoilage that eventually killed a number of animals. Master C.W. Sharp found that the farmer's insurance under the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program did not cover damage by ravens (only "big game" and "waterfowl") and that the failure by the Province to amend the Program to include ravens was not actionable.