able offences; and the commitment in question is not, and In re does not profess to be, founded upon any of these provisions. It seeks to apply a common law remedy.
-NewcombeJ. I refuse the application.
Application refused. HAROLD WILLIAM KEAY (PLAINTIFF) . .. APPELLANT; *April 29,30.
AND
*June
- ALBERTA CO-OPERATIVE WHEAT
PRODUCERS, LTD., AND ALBERTA
RESPONDENTS. POOL ELEVATORS, LTD. (DEFEND- ANTS)
..............................
ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA
Plaintiff entered into a "marketing agreement" with the defendant "Pool" (Alberta Co-operative Wheat Producers, Ltd.). It recited that plaintiff desired to co-operate with other growers in producing and marketing wheat, that the Pool had been formed with power to act as the agent of its members as to marketing, that plaintiff desired to become a member and to enter, with other growers, into the agreement, that the agreement, although individual in expression, was one of a series between the Pool and the growers of wheat in Alberta and should constitute one contract between the several growers signing it and the Pool. In the agreement plaintiff applied for a share of the capital stock of the Pool, which covenanted to allot same to him. Plaintiff agreed to deliver his wheat for certain years and the Pool agreed to market it. Provision was made for retention by the Pool, out of the returns for sale of the wheat, of its expenses, of 1% as a commercial reserve to be used for any of its purposes, and of an amount for investment in shares of an elevator company.
After expiration of the agreement plaintiff brought action, claiming that he had not been given a proper accounting, nor payment of his proper proportion of the proceeds of the wheat sold, that certain excess earnings had been inequitably distributed among the Pool members, and that shares in an elevator company purchased with his money had not been put in his name; and he claimed an accounting, payment of his proper share, transfer into his name of said elevator company shares, and damages. The Pool moved to stay proceedings on the ground that the matters in controversy must be decided by arbitration. The Pool was in- *PRESENT:-Duff, Newcombe, Rinfret, Lamont and Smith JJ.