Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Richardson

[1998] 3 S.C.R. 157

SCC Reasons for Judgment

Facta

Date Document
1997 / 02 / 17 Appellant – Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
1997 / 04 / 21 Respondents – Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson, operating as Northern Poultry
1997 / 05 / 15 Intervener – Attorney General of British Columbia
1997 / 05 / 16 Intervener – Attorney General of Alberta
1997 / 05 / 16 Intervener – Attorney General of Canada
1997 / 05 / 16 Intervener – Attorney General of Quebec
1997 / 05 / 20 Intervener – Attorney General of Ontario
1997 / 05 / 20 Intervener – Commissioner of the Northwest Territories
1997 / 05 / 20 Interveners – Council of Canadians and Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society
1998 / 02 / 18 Intervener – Alberta Barley Commission
1998 / 02 / 20 Appellant (rehearing factum) – Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
1998 / 02 / 24 Respondents (reply to the Alberta Barley Commission) – Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson
1998 / 02 / 25 Appellant (reply to the Alberta Barley Commission) – Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
1998 / 03 / 06 Respondents (supplemental factum) – Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson, operating as Northern Poultry
1898 / 03 / 12 Intervener (rehearing factum) – Attorney General of Ontario
1998 / 03 / 12 Intervener (supplemental factum) – Attorney General of Quebec
1998 / 03 / 13 Intervener (rehearing factum) – Attorney General of British Columbia
1998 / 03 / 13 Intervener (rehearing factum) – Attorney General of Canada
1998 / 03 / 13 Intervener (supplemental factum) – Commissioner of the Northwest Territories
1998 / 03 / 13 Interveners (rehearing factum) – Council of Canadians and Sierra Legal Defence Fund Society