Art Mainil (Plaintiff) and the Canadian Wheat Board and Meyers Norris
Penny (Defendants)
December 20 was the date the judicial court was held via
video-teleconference with the judge presiding in Ottawa. Other video
systems were set in Edmonton, AB, Weyburn, SK, and Winnipeg, MB.
Affidavits were sworn and presented.
The CWB lawyers and staff, along with Meyers Norris & Penny staff,
flew to Ottawa to be in the same room as the judge. There was a system
set up in Winnipeg, but the decision to spend extra funds and time was
made to be in Ottawa.
One question is being asked by CFFJ: Isn't there a concern to conserve
funds from the farmer's pool accounts when possible?
The Judge said she'll give her decision by December 23. The information
in this section is just some evidence presented to Madam Justice Anne
McTavish from both sides.
Meyers Norris Penny defence to the court
injunction by Arthur Mainil filed in Federal Court (in part):
Section 30. The Standard of Proof
Overall, the Plaintiff is asking this Honourable Court to make a
determination that the election was conducted improperly and that
faults in the election have prejudiced himself and other candidates.
This Honourable Court is therefore charged with considering, on the
whole, whether two problems identified in the election justify an
injunction and, potentially holding the entire election again. Neither
the Canadian Wheat Board Act or the Regulations provide for any
process whereby the validity of an election can be challenged.
Furthermore, neither the Act nor the regulations provide any specific
guidance as to the standard upon which the conduct of an election is
to be judged.
