Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson explained

Case-Name:	Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson
Full-Case-Name:	Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v. Pineview Poultry Products Ltd. and Frank Richardson operating as Northern Poultry
Heard-Date:	March 19, 1998
Decided-Date:	November 5, 1998
Citations:	[1998] 3 S.C.R. 157
Docket:	25192
History:	Judgment against the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency in the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories.
Ruling:	Appeal allowed
Ratio:	Corporations who are defendants in civil litigation instigated by the state have the right to raise an argument under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In regards to section 6 of the Charter, sections 6(2)(b) and 6(3)(a) should be read together as forming one right. The purpose of the mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter is to protect against human rights discrimination, not economic discrimination. The mobility rights under section 6 of the Charter include the ability to create wealth in another province, not just the ability to physically move to another province.
Scc:	1998-1999
Majority:	Iacobucci and Bastarache JJ.
Joinmajority:	Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, and Binnie JJ.
Dissent:	McLachlin J.
Joindissent:	Major J.

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency v Richardson, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 157 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on standing to challenge a law as a violation of the Constitution of Canada. The Court expanded the exception first established in R. v. Big M Drug Mart to allow corporations to invoke the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in civil litigation. The corporation had claimed rights to freedom of association and freedom of movement under section 2(d) and section 6 of the Charter.

See also

• Manitoba (AG) v Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association
• Reference Re Agricultural Products Marketing
• List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (Lamer Court)