Accredit NFU-O as a general farm organization, court rules

Friday, October 18, 2013

by SUSAN MANN

The Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal considered irrelevant factors when it denied accreditation to National Farmers Union–Ontario last year, but the farm group meets the criteria under provincial legislation and should be accredited, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.

Judge Robert N. Beaudoin handed down his decision Oct. 16 after a hearing was held in Ottawa in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Sept. 10. NFU-O requested a judicial review of the tribunal’s decision denying it reaccreditation as a general farm organization.

Ontario’s Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act permits accredited general farm organizations to draw their funding from membership dues that farmers are required to pay each year when they apply for farm business registration. Farmers must pay the dues to an accredited organization of their choice and register their business to become eligible for government-funded business risk programs and several other programs. The membership dues form a major portion of the general farm organizations’ funding.

The Act gives the tribunal the power to award the general farm accreditation.

NFU-O asked the court for an order to set aside the tribunal’s 2012 decision to deny it accreditation. NFU-O also asked for an order directing the tribunal to accredit the organization.

NFU-O president John Sutherland says he’s happy with the decision but he’s also cautious because the tribunal still has time to appeal. In a Thursday news release he further notes “council is pleased with Judge Beaudoin’s decision in our favour, although we are frustrated about having to spend precious resources to obtain a fair assessment about meeting the criteria for re-accreditation."

Sutherland said Thursday night he hadn’t yet reviewed the 24-page decision in detail.

Beaudoin says in his written ruling an order “directing the tribunal to accredit the NFU-O should be issued.”

Mark Cripps, spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, says the next step in the process is a court order needs to be prepared by NFU-O for the judge to sign.

NFU-O was the successful party in the hearing and it’s the one to write the order, he notes. But the tribunal doesn’t have to wait for the court order to “grant accreditation to NFU-O,” he says.

The tribunal has 15 days from the date Beaudoin’s decision was released to serve notice it’s requesting leave to appeal, Cripps notes.

The tribunal couldn’t be reached for comment.

Cripps says the agriculture minister represented by the Crown law office civil counsel was granted intervener status at the September hearing with the consent of the tribunal and NFU-O. “The minister’s position at the hearing focused on how the Act should be interpreted. This interpretation was adopted by the court.”

Beaudoin says for 10 years the tribunal accepted NFU-O as an organization representing farmers in Ontario and didn’t identify any change in circumstance in its decision being reviewed by the court “that warranted a change in this finding.” NFU-O was first accredited in 2002.

The ministry argued the tribunal considered factors during NFU-O’s 2012 reaccreditation hearing that weren’t among the criteria in the Act for an accreditation application, Beaudoin says. The tribunal looked at:

• The corporate structure of both the Saskatchewan-based National Farmers Union and NFU-O;
• The circumstances of NFU-O’s incorporation in 2002;
• The roles and functions of the corporate officers of each organization;
• Legal agreements between the two organizations;
• NFU’s financial statements; and
• How annual general meetings are conducted.

But the ministry said none of these factors was included as criteria for farm group accreditation under the Act. There’s also nothing in the Act or its regulations authorizing or requiring the tribunal to investigate or make findings on these factors, he says.

The tribunal regarded the NFU/NFU-O relationship as pivotal and characterized it in negative terms, he says.  But the Act doesn’t stop an accredited organization from having an affiliation with a national group.

He notes the tribunal didn’t have the discretion to deny accreditation to NFU-O if the organization met the criteria under the Act “as I have concluded it has done.”

The tribunal argued its finding that NFU-O didn’t meet two of the criteria for reaccreditation was reasonable and was based on detailed oral and verbal evidence obtained during two days of hearings, Beaudoin says.

There’s some urgency to getting NFU-O reaccredited, the judge notes. Delays in dealing with NFU-O’s reaccreditation application in 2012 meant NFU-O’s name didn’t appear on the 2013 farm business registration forms, and the organization “received very little revenue for this calendar year.” The forms for the upcoming registration process are printed in November and if NFU-O isn’t reaccredited its name won’t appear again. That means it won’t receive funding for a second year, making it impossible for the group to continue operating.

Cripps says no court costs were awarded in the case. BF