I do understand the hate toward companies like Monsanto, however. Hating all GMOs because of some unethical company peddling them seems heavy-handed and broad-stroked to me, though.
Monsanto is basically to agriculture as Oracle is to IT.
Schmesier's case is one where the seeds were initially blown onto his property so that may be what you're referring to. From Wikipedia:
As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997. He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
Regardless, to me that's a distinction without a difference. Suing a farmer because he used seeds that blew into his property is still a dick move. Too bad the Canadian courts don't seem to agree (though considering that the Supreme Court decision was a 5-4 split, I'd argue that the legality of contaminating someone's field with genetically-modified seeds and then suing farmers for using those seeds or the products thereof is still very contestable, and for good reason).