The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench has issued the first Canadian decision to award damages for infringement of plant breeders’ rights under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act (PBRA). In Alliance Seed Corp v Fournier 2026 SKKB 5, Justice Robertson addressed not only liability, but, perhaps more significantly, how damages should be quantified in a statutory regime where no prior judicial guidance exists. The decision is currently under appeal and may be subject to further appellate guidance.
Key takeaways
- First Canadian decision awarding damages under the PBRA
- Court adopts patent-law principles to assess and quantify damages
- Significant general damages award ($1.17M) based on estimation methodology
- Punitive damages ($50,000) reflect intolerance for litigation misconduct
- Permanent injunctions are not automatic, even after proven infringement
Regulatory framework and the Verona variety
The PBRA provides a form of intellectual property protection for new plant varieties, granting rights holders exclusive control over the sale and commercialization of propagating material, including certified seed, for a period of 20 or 25 years from the grant date, depending on the variety. The Act defines “sale” broadly to include advertising or offering seed for sale, reflecting its commercial focus.
The crop at issue, a variety of durum wheat named CDC Verona, was developed by the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre, registered under the PBRA, and commercialized through a chain of licensing agreements culminating with Alliance Seed Corporation.
Procedural background and default judgment
Although the decision was released in 2026, the underlying infringement occurred between 2013 and 2016. Alliance became aware of potential unauthorized advertising and sales in 2015 and initiated proceedings in 2017 after repeated unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter.
Disputes over PBRs are rarely litigated and are often resolved informally with minimal compensation to the rights holder or licensee, reflecting the importance of maintaining ongoing relationships with farmers.
This case marked a clear departure from that norm. Mr. Fournier was persistently uncooperative throughout the litigation, resulting in a civil contempt order (now purged) and a $10,000 fine. He also failed to file a statement of defence, leaving the allegations effectively uncontested. As a result, the matter proceeded by way of default judgment, with the Court treating Alliance’s pleaded facts as admitted and liability effectively established.
Quantifying damages in the absence of records
The central issue in the decision was how to quantify damages under a statutory framework that had never previously been judicially interpreted in this context.
Adoption of patent law principles
Alliance argued that the PBRA’s remedial provisions are analogous to those found in the Patent Act, and the Court agreed. In doing so, it confirmed that established patent law remedies, including compensatory damages and accounting of profits, are available in the PBR context.
This alignment is significant, as it effectively imports the well-developed and mature body of patent law remedies into the PBRA, providing a potential precedent for future enforcement actions.
The “Missing grain formula”
In the absence of reliable sales records, largely due to Mr. Fournier’s failure to produce documents, the Court accepted Alliance’s estimation-based methodology, referred to as the “Missing grain formula”:
Missing grain = seed produced − (seed sold + seed stored + seed seeded)
Using this approach, Alliance calculated total losses of $1,306,513.95.
Judicial adjustment
Recognizing the inherent uncertainty in agricultural production and estimation-based models, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the calculated amount by 10%, resulting in a general damages award of $1,175,862.56.
No permanent injunction
One of the more unexpected aspects of the decision is the Court’s refusal to grant a permanent injunction, despite finding clear infringement.
The Court held that there was no evidence of ongoing or future misconduct and that the substantial damages award would provide sufficient deterrence. This stands in contrast to patent litigation, where permanent injunctions often follow findings of infringement.
The decision underscores that injunctive relief remains discretionary and grounded in equitable principles, requiring evidence of a likelihood of continued harm rather than flowing automatically from liability.
Punitive damages and litigation conduct
The Court also awarded $50,000 in punitive damages, citing the need for both specific and general deterrence. Mr. Fournier’s prolonged infringement and persistent non-cooperation were key factors.
Punitive damages remain relatively rare in Canadian intellectual property cases, including patent disputes and are typically reserved for “high‑handed” or “reprehensible” conduct during the course of litigation. Their award here is therefore notable, reinforcing that litigation misconduct and prolonged intentional infringement of PBRs may attract elevated sanctions.
Conclusion
The Court ultimately awarded Alliance $1,175,862.56 in general damages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and costs, although the decision is currently under appeal. This is a significant award in the agricultural context.
This decision sends a strong signal that unauthorized advertisement, sale or distribution of protected seed varieties can result in meaningful financial consequences, and that Canadian courts are prepared to adopt broad, estimation-based methodologies where defendants fail to provide sufficient records. It also confirms that damages or an accounting of profits are available as remedies for infringement.
Overall, Alliance Seed Corp v Fournier 2026 SKKB 5 represents a strong win for Canadian PBR holders, and a significant development in Canadian law regarding PBRs, demonstrating that these rights are enforceable in practical farming contexts and can give rise to substantial liability.
Stay Tuned
Stay up to date on IP law developments in Canada in 2026 and beyond with our IP Insights and Rx IP Updates. Subscribe to receive them in your Inbox throughout the year.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.