by BETTER FARMING STAFF
An egg grading controversy moved to a court house in Oshawa Thursday where Superior Court Justice Peter Lauwers overturned a year-old Anton Piller order that kept many documents and electronic files pertaining to the business of Strathroy-based L.H. Gray & Son Limited, in the hands of a court appointed supervisor.
David Williams, a lawyer representing Gray, claimed that Norman Bourdeau, a London IT expert and former Gray employee, had stolen them. Williams described “a vendetta against my client.”
“My clients confidential documents are all over the place,” said Williams. The court heard that Bourdeau had distributed packages of the documents, including emails, as far away as British Columbia, to the Farm Products Marketing Commission in Ontario and to a federal agency that according to Williams, Bourdeau wouldn’t identify during an earlier examination in another court case.
Lawyer Donald Good, representing Blackstock-based egg grading company, Sweda Farms in an ongoing 2005 lawsuit against Egg Farmers of Ontario, claimed the documents were important to his client’s case. He wants to compare Gray’s internal egg grading records with the records that were submitted to the provincial egg marketing board.
Gray’s counsel insisted the documents contained confidential information such as payroll records, along with egg grading information.
Lauwers cited “inadequate disclosure” in his decision to overturn the Anton Piller order, a rarely-used, civil writ usually used to prevent destruction or removal of evidence. Good described the order as “Anton Piller light” because no search warrant had been issued to seize the information.
Lauwers ordered that “any document or data found to be irrelevant (to the case) be returned” to Gray. Documents that are relevant will remain in the hands of the supervisor. “My intention is to bring some order to this procedure,” Lauwers said.“It will be up to the court to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant.”
During Thursday’s proceedings, another Gray lawyer Allison Webster and Bourdeau’s lawyer Rod Refcio came to an agreement. Bourdeau will produce all documents including submissions to the Farm Products Marketing Commission and a list of all third parties he has shared the information with.
When approached by Better Farming following the hearing, Refcio, said: “no comment at this point in time as the matter has been put over to another hearing.”
Geoffrey P. Spurr, lawyer for Egg Farmers of Ontario and Tiffany Soucy, acting for Burnbrae Farms Limited, attended the hearing. Their clients are among the defendants named in the 2005 case launched by Sweda Farms.
Justice Lauwer set June 10, to hear motions that weren’t resolved at Thursday’s hearing.
Gray’s lawyer Williams wants Bourdeau cited for contempt of court, for sharing information with other parties while it was protected by the Anton Piller agreement.
Sweda Farms’ lawyer Good wants to consolidate the suit between Sweda Farms and the egg board with another suit between the same parties involving levies the egg board charged producers it insisted had shipped eggs without paying levies to the marketing board. At the beginning of the day, Lauwer said the lawsuit is “a difficult case and there is a lot of stuff” to read in the file.
At the end of the day the Justice said he would hear the next stage of the case himself because; “I wouldn’t want to force one of my colleagues to go through this again.” BF
Egg case summary
Comments
This case is wrought with enough legal maneuvering to make a whole new reality show. How sad that government and those in a supervisory capacity have sunk so low.
Comment appreciated but modified by editors for legal reasons.
Gray’s lawyer Williams wants Bourdeau cited for contempt of court, for sharing information with other parties while it was protected by the Anton Piller agreement.
WHAT IS ANTON PILLER PROTECTION?????????????????????????????????
That my good friend is what the editors purged from the previous post ....Nothing more no opinion just the definition of Anton Piller agreement. Try goggling it. there is no honesty or transparency in the courts making deals or the sealing of documents.
Editors' note:
We appreciate the many comments posted about this and similar stories and understand everyone's interest in finding answers.
We won't approve legal definitions from other countries however or from non-authoritative sources.
Anton Piller order originates from English case law which is the background of English common law here in Canada. Anton Pillar orders gain popularity here in the 1980's Amazingly Anton pillar orders are also found in legal doctrine book entitled L'Injonction et les ordonnances Anton Piller, .... gens d'affaires du Québec (Shareholders' Agreement and Litigation);
Last I checked Quebec was not a foreign country and much of Canadian law is and has been based on English common law.
When it is all said and done It sounds like Farm Products Marketing Commission has not been doing its job, The good old boy system needs a lawful management Audit.
not much hope for farmers if documents become hidden
Post new comment