Hyperlawhypertext legal database The Queen v. Sommerville [1974] SCR 387

← Cases

The Queen v. Sommerville

[1974] SCR 387 Court SCC Decision date 1972-10-18 English

PartiesHer Majesty The Queen Appellant·Raymond Silas Boyd Sommerville Respondent

Counsel (4)
H.B. Monk, Q.C., and E.I. MacDonald, Q.C., for the appellant.
S.E. Halyk, for the respondent.
Solicitor for the appellant: Henry B. Monk, Winnipeg.
Solicitors for the respondent: Halyk & Burlingham, Saskatoon.

Judges Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from Alberta

Subjects Statutes

Contents

The judgment of Fauteux C.J. and of Abbott, Martland, Ritchie and Spence JJ. was delivered by

The accused Raymond Silas Boyd Sommerville resides and carries on farming operations with his father in the District of Mantario, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
Between the 4th day of March, 1969 and the 29th day of April, 1969 the accused transported from his farm in the Province of Saskatchewan to the Province of Alberta approximately 4,326 bushels of feed wheat grown on such farm and belonging to himself and to his father.
The said feed wheat was delivered to Coaldale Southern Feed Ltd., Coaldale, Alberta, and Canada Packers Feed Mill in Medicine Hat, Alberta, where the grain was rolled and concentrates added.
From the said feed mills the grain was hauled to and stored in storage bins provided to the accused and his father on the premises of Valley Feeders Ltd. at Lethbridge, Alberta and Coaldale, Alberta.
The accused pays the said feed mill for the processing of the grain plus the cost of any additives used and at no time was any of the wheat in question sold or traded to any person.
Following delivery of the processed grain to the storage bins previously mentioned the processed grain was then fed to cattle owned solely by the accused and his father by the employees of Valley Feeders Ltd.
Valley Feeders Ltd. charge the accused and his father for the care of the said feeder cattle a set rate per day per animal plus the cost of any supplements

[Page 390]

provided by them while the cattle belonging to the accused and his father are on its premises.
At no time relevant to this charge did the accused or his father possess a license from the Canadian Wheat Board for the transportation of wheat from one province to another pursuant to the regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Footnotes

  1. [1] [1971] 2 W.W.R. 191, 3 C.C.C. (2d) 79, 18 D.L.R. (3d) 343.
  2. [2] [1960] A.C. 748 at 767.
  3. [3] (1956), 19 W.W.R. 57, 74 C.R.T.C. 166, 4 D.L.R. (2d) 443.
  4. [4] [1958] S.C.R. 626, 19 W.W.R. 57, 15 D.L.R. (2d) 145.
  5. [5] [1965] S.C.R. 798, 53 D.L.R. (2d) 532.
  6. [6] [1960] A.C. 748 at 767.
  7. [7] [1921] 2 A.C. 384 at 387-388, [1921] 3 W.W.R. 214, (1929),59 D.L.R. 402.
  8. [8] [1958] S.C.R. 626, 19 W.W.R. 57, 15 D.L.R. (2d) 145.
  9. [9] [1969] S.C.R. 176, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 1, 1 D.L.R. (3d) 501.

Statutes and regulations cited