M & D Farm Ltd. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp.

Binnie J. -- This is an application by M & D Farm Limited, Marcel Robert Desrochers and Darlene Erma Desrochers for an order that any further proceedings, including the disposition of a Manitoba farm legally described as:

The North East Quarter of Section Twenty‑seven, in Township Three and Range Thirteen, West of the Principal Meridian, in Manitoba;

be stayed “in relation to” a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal pronounced July 10, 1997 (reasons for judgment published at (1997), 118 Man. R. (2d) 174) until such time as this Court has rendered a decision in this appeal. The applicants also request the abridgement of time periods.

By order dated February 12, 1998, leave was granted to the applicants to appeal to this Court the said judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The formal notice of appeal was filed March 6, 1998.

Prior to the granting of leave to appeal, the applicants applied to this Court for a stay of proceedings, which was dismissed on October 16, 1997. Major J. observed that s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. S‑26 , authorizes the judge of a provincial appellate court to order a stay of proceedings “with respect to the judgment from which leave to appeal is being sought” (emphasis added). However, when the issue came before Twaddle J.A. of the Manitoba Court of Appeal on March 23, 1998, he held that leave having by that time been granted by this Court he no longer had jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Accordingly, without considering the merits of the application, Twaddle J.A. dismissed the application with costs: [1998] M.J. No. 191 (QL). The applicants thus find themselves back in this Court.

The respondent takes the position that as a Crown agent it is not subject to the requested stay because of the bar to the grant of injunctive relief against the Crown in right of Manitoba contained in The Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. P140. Apart from anything else, this objection fails on constitutional grounds. Assuming the requested interim relief could be characterized as an injunction, and even if The Proceedings Against the Crown Act were otherwise considered applicable, it would still not be open to provincial legislation to control what relief may or may not be granted by this Court pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules thereunder.

Section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act confers a very broad jurisdiction in respect of interim relief on the Court, or a judge thereof. In RJR -- MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, it was held, at p. 329, by Sopinka and Cory JJ. on behalf of the Court as follows:

We are of the view that the Court is empowered, pursuant to both s. 65.1 and r. 27, not only to grant a stay of execution and of proceedings in the traditional sense, but also to make any order that preserves matters between the parties in a state that will prevent prejudice as far as possible pending resolution by the Court of the controversy, so as to enable the Court to render a meaningful and effective judgment. The Court must be able to intervene not only against the direct dictates of the judgment but also against its effects. This means that the Court must have jurisdiction to enjoin conduct on the part of a party in reliance on the judgment which, if carried out, would tend to negate or diminish the effect of the judgment of this Court.

As pointed out by Twaddle J.A., the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal in issue did not direct the sale or delivery of property: it vested the property in the respondent. As he states (at paras. 11 and 12):

By filing the judgment in the appropriate Land Titles Office, the respondent fully executed the judgment in its favour. If it sells the property, it does so pursuant to its title; not pursuant to a court order.

What the applicants need is not a stay of either execution or proceedings, but an injunction enjoining the respondent from exercising its right to dispose of the land in question prior to the delivery of judgment by the Supreme Court.

In my view, s. 65.1 is a sufficient foundation for the interim relief requested.

This appeal involves the title to farm property. It is clear from the supporting material that sale of the property by the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation would put beyond reach the property which is the subject matter of the appeal. The order of Clearwater J. dated March 20, 1997 vested the land in the name of the applicant, M & D Farm Limited. Subsequently, by judgment dated July 10, 1997, the Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and the land in issue was ordered to vest in the name of the respondent. Accordingly, if the appeal is granted, and the order of Clearwater J. dated March 20, 1997 is restored, alienation of the property by the respondent at this stage would “tend to negate or diminish the effect of the judgment of this Court” within the meaning of RJR -- MacDonald, supra. Were the respondent to dispose of the property, this Court would not thereafter be in a position to restore the status quo ante. The order should go as asked.

Therefore, upon application by the applicants, M & D Farm Limited, Marcel Robert Desrochers and Darlene Erma Desrochers, for an order that any further proceedings, including the disposition of the land legally described as:

The North East Quarter of Section Twenty‑seven, in Township Three and Range Thirteen, West of the Principal Meridian, in Manitoba;

be stayed in relation to a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal pronounced July 10, 1997 until this Honourable Court has rendered a decision on the appeal; and for an order abridging the time period for filing and serving the notice of motion and the respondent’s time for filing material in response, or for such other order as may seem just;

And upon reading the material filed in support of the motion and the material filed in opposition to the motion;

It is hereby ordered that: