In a state-initiated civil enforcement action under the federal egg marketing supply-management regime, the respondents challenged the constitutionality of the scheme under the Charter.
The majority held that corporate defendants had standing to raise Charter invalidity through an extension of the Big M Drug Mart exception where coercive civil proceedings were brought by a state organ pursuant to a regulatory scheme.
On the merits, the majority held the scheme did not violate mobility rights under s. 6 because the primary basis of the quota allocation system was historical production patterns, not residence, and the respondents failed to prove practical prejudice relative to comparable new producers in destination provinces.
The majority also rejected the freedom of association claim, holding s. 2(d) protects the associational aspect of activity, not commercial activity itself.
