The Queen v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
Encyclopedia
The Queen v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205 is a leading case of the Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...

 on tort law. The Court rejected the tort of breach of statutory duty. The courts should only use breaches of a statute as evidence towards an established tort and should not be trying to determine whether the legislature intended to allow a private right of action.

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was a grain handling, agri-food processing and marketing company based in Regina, Saskatchewan. The Pool created a network of marketing alliances in North America and internationally which made it the largest agricultural grain handling operation in the province of...

 delivered a shipment of infested wheat from one of its terminal elevators to the Canadian Wheat Board
Canadian Wheat Board
The Canadian Wheat Board was established by the Parliament of Canada on 5 July 1935 as a mandatory producer marketing system for wheat and barley in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and a small part of British Columbia...

, which violated section 86(c) of the Canada Grain Act. The Board sought to recover damages for the statutory violation.

At trial, the Federal Court of Canada
Federal Court of Canada
The Federal Court of Canada was a national court of Canada that heard some types of disputes arising under the central government's legislative jurisdiction...

 held in favour of the Board but was reversed on appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the breach of the Act gave the Board a private right of action.

Justice Dickson, for a unanimous Court, dismissed the appeal of the Board and held that there was no private right of action. Dickson examined the tort of breach of statutory duty in both England and the United States. He concluded that damages for breach of statutory duty should be subsumed by the law of negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...

. He further rejected any novel right of action for damages for breach of statute and instead stated that the breach can be used as evidence of negligence and as evidence of a standard of care
Standard of care
In tort law, the standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care.The requirements of the standard are closely dependent on circumstances. Whether the standard of care has been breached is determined by the trier of fact, and is usually...

.
The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK