Tom? Do farmers really own the CWB?

[Hopperbin]

I would have thought that the CWB was a government run organization for farmers. Farmer owned???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

Conversion is a common law tort. A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another.[1] It is a tort of strict liability.[2] Its criminal counterpart is theft.

Examples are seen in cases where trees are cut down and the lumber hauled from the land by someone not having clear ownership; or removing furniture belonging to another from a cohabited dwelling, placing it in storage and not telling the owner of the whereabouts. In medieval times, a conversion would occur when bolts of cloth were bailed for safe keeping, and the bailee or a third party took them and made clothes for their own use or for sale. (See below)

Many questions concerning joint ownership in enterprises such as a partnership belong in equity, and do not rise to the level of a conversion. Traditionally, a conversion occurs when some chattel is lost, then found by another who appropriates it to his own use without legal authority to do so. It has also applied in cases where chattels were bailed for safe keeping, then misused or misappropriated by the bailee or a third party.

Conversion, as a purely civil wrong, is distinguishable from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act inconsistent with another's rights, and theft will also be conversion. But not all conversions are thefts because conversion requires no element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. If one claims an unjust enrichment, the person who has another's property may always raise a change of position defence, to say they have unwittingly used up the assets they were transferred. For conversion, there always must be an element of voluntarily dealing with another's property, inconsistently with their rights.

[TOM4CWB]

Hopper,

I see no where in C24 or C18 that the CWB was in any way... "Farmer Owned".

When Parliament pays losses... and non-grain profits accruing to the CWB went back to General Revenue... as C24 clearly specified... even the last round of Federal Court rulings (Measner et el.; determined the CWB Directors were responsible to the CWB Minister.

As much as farmers own any other part of the federal government... they own the CWB.

[rockpile]

Hmmm, I looked at the 1998 version of the Act and
my take away is that notwithstanding anything, all
assets of the CWB belong to the Crown. On another
note, section 3:13 allows total indemnification of
Directors and Officers so in short, forget about
suing the former Directors - you'll be the one to
pay should they lose. Also noted Section 6 D which
tells me that Ritz knew all about the Great Lakes
ship deal and had to have given it his approval
before it could have been announced. There is a lot
of heavy handed stuff in the statutes and regs and
no wonder so many producers felt stiffed. But don't
for a second think that is all gone now - read your
sales contracts carefully going forward.

[TOM4CWB]

Rockpile,

Minister Ritz DID know about the Lakers. However the Finance Department refused to sign off on the ships... and Minister Ritz also told the CWB Directors NOT to buy the ships... and leave the pool accounts alone.

Exchair Oberg refused to honour Minister Ritz's and Finances direction.

CWB legal beagles told the CWB directors they could get away with buying ships because they were not 'fixed' assets or 'property' in the conventional terms... and the government didn't want an extended court case over them... when Exchair Oberg was on a long walk off a short dock after the May 2 2011 election.

Finance gave approval for the upgrade on the hoppercars... not at all like the ship purchase... I believe.

Who exactly will pay for the Oberg ships will become clearer as the Budget becomes public this spring.

[malta]

I had a chance to ask the CFO of the CWB who owns the CWB assets. She said that if the CWB is wound down, all assets belong to the government of Canada. My reading of the 1998 Act leads me to believe that is true.

[Hopperbin]

You know when a slang word is used enough it will actually become a word but a word is no ones private or personal property. CWB supporters have said enough times that the CWB is their property that it appears to have become law in the face of some lawyers and judges. If the CWB supporters have confiscated the CWB from the Government then they themselves are guilty of Conversion. It does make sense to me. Too bad the supporters are not worth 15 billion. We could get a class action started against them for conversion.

[Hopperbin]

The federal gov't should take us farmers to court and charge us with conversion. Would give us a wake up call on who claims to owns the CWB. Maybe just babbling here but I really think this conversion class action is a joke. Should be a comic in the producer.

[stubblejumper]

CWB battle not over







By Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-PostJanuary 14, 2012




















According to Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, it's all over but the crying for supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk.

"It's a done deal, folks,'' Ritz told delegates at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers convention in Moose Jaw last week, referring to the legislation to eliminate the CWB's monopoly over wheat and barley exports Aug. 1.

Then in Saskatoon this week, Ritz dismissed the threat of a class-action lawsuit by Regina lawyer Tony Merchant as "a bit of comic relief '' and reiterated that the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act "is now, and will continue to be, the law of the land.''

While Ritz sounds confident, even cocky, it has a certain whistling-past-thegraveyard feel to it.

It's almost as if by repeating the phrases "specious'' and "baseless" often enough, Ritz will make the mounting legal challenges facing his government disappear.

Unfortunately for Ritz and company, the legal challenges are real and they're not going away.

In fact, in all likelihood, they're going to multiply in the weeks and months ahead.

The first challenge is the federal court ruling Dec. 6 that says Ritz's actions in pushing through Bill C-18 in clear violation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act (which requires a producer plebiscite if major changes are made to the single desk) were an "affront to the rule of law.''

The federal government is appealing that decision to the federal court of appeal. For his part, Ritz dismissed it as a "declaration'' that has no legal effect.

If that's the case, then why is the federal government appealing the decision?

But if the government is taking the federal court ruling seriously, why is it proceeding to implement the legislation?

Shouldn't the government find out whether its actions were legal or not before implementing Bill C-18?

That's why former elected directors of the CWB are calling on the federal court to quash the Harper government's appeal of the federal court ruling.

"We believe that the Harper government should have to choose - either the government moves ahead to dismantle the CWB without a vote of farmers, or they continue with their efforts to reverse the decision at appeal - but they should not be able to do both at the same time," said Bill Toews, a former CWB director.

Another legal obstacle for the Harper government is the application by eight former directors of the CWB for a court injunction to suspend Bill C-18 until its legality is determined. That application will be heard in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in Winnipeg next week.

Finally, the aforementioned Merchant class action, which seeks $15.4 billion in damages for Western Canadian farmers resulting from the loss of the single desk and the assets accumulated by the CWB. This elicited a chuckle from Ritz, since Merchant is a well-known Liberal and the lone plaintiff is Duane Filson, a twicedefeated Liberal candidate for Cypress Hills-Grasslands.

Ritz can laugh all he wants, but the Merchant class action (assuming it is certified by a court) poses another thorny legal problem for the Harper government.


Assuming Bill C-18 is a legal act (a big assumption at this point), can the government confiscate the assets of the CWB, remove its monopoly, manage the business for a few years, then sell the assets to a third party, without paying a single penny in compensation to farmers?

Let's not forget the CWB is not a conventional Crown corporation. It receives no ongoing support from the federal government (or at least it didn't until the Harper government took it over) other than a federal guarantee of the initial payments to farmers. The assets have been financed by farmers, who pooled their grain and used the proceeds from the sale of their crops to finance the CWB's operations and pay themselves.

What gives this government the right to seize farmers' assets, sell them and pocket the proceeds, without paying any compensation to farmers?

And the Merchant class action promises to be the first of several such lawsuits. The Friends of Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian Wheat Board Alliance are just two of the groups considering similar legal action.

As Yogi Berra famously said: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Johnstone is the Leader-Post's financial editor

© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post


Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/battle over/5994891/story.html#ixzz1jTzhlJKk