Chicken Farmers of Ontario policies stand - for now
Saturday, September 27, 2014
by SUSAN MANN
The Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal has dismissed two appeals involving Chicken Farmers of Ontario policies.
In a Sept. 22 written decision, the tribunal dismissed an Ontario Independent Poultry Processors appeal of Chicken Farmers of Ontario’s specialty chicken policy.
The Independent Poultry Processors, which represents Ontario’s small chicken processors, had wanted Chicken Farmers to implement a specialty chicken policy the two organizations and the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) developed about two years ago.
The policy, however, was never implemented because AOCP, the organization which represents the province’s large chicken processors, was concerned the kilograms of chicken needed for specialty bird production would come from its members’ allocations. AOCP appealed the policy to the tribunal but withdrew its appeal earlier this year saying its concerns would be addressed.
The Chicken Farmers’ subsequently debuted a revised specialty breeds chicken program Sept. 11.
During the Independent Poultry Processors appeal, heard Sept. 15, general manager John Slot told the tribunal the organization’s members suffered “irreparable damage because the previous policy was not implemented,” the tribunal’s written decisions says.
But both the AOCP and Chicken Farmers’ lawyers said the appeal should be dismissed since the policy it’s based on has been revoked. They said the Independent Poultry Processors should request Chicken Farmers reconsider the new policy and if it is not satisfied with that decision then it could appeal to the tribunal.
The tribunal agreed that it couldn’t just substitute the new policy for the one that was revoked. It said the independent poultry processors will have to apply for a hearing on the new policy.
The tribunal says in its opinion it no longer has “jurisdiction to continue this appeal,” the decision says.
Slot says they won’t be appealing the tribunal’s decision. But if they did it would take almost a year for the matter to work its way through the system and “we do not want to get caught in a constant battle when they (Chicken Farmers of Ontario) keep changing things.” In addition, “we don’t have the resources to take on these battles.”
In a separate decision handed down Sept. 24, the tribunal refused to hear an appeal by Glenn Black on the Chicken Farmers’ policy governing the number of chickens farmers can raise without quota. The current number is 300 birds annually and Black wants it increased to 2,000 a year.
In its written decision the tribunal noted that they rarely refuse to hear an appeal. Kirk Walstedt, tribunal chair, says in an email the last time an appeal was refused was in 2010.
Black is the president of Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada, a group whose membership stands at 34 members and whose purpose, according to its website, is to advocate for the civil rights and important role small flock poultry farmers can and should play in Canadian society.
The tribunal says in this written decision the 300-bird limit is not the real motive behind Black’s appeal. Instead, Black is motivated to use the tribunal process to gain a platform for advancing and debating his personal political agenda. “In these circumstances we find that to be in bad faith,” the decision says.
The tribunal first encountered Black’s appeal May 14 when Chicken Farmers of Ontario sought to dismiss or limit it. In its May 21 decision, the tribunal ruled it would strike down Black’s appeal but give him 60 days from that date to resubmit another appeal just on the matter of increasing the 300-bird limit on production without quota.
The tribunal told Black it didn’t have the jurisdiction to hear most of his initial appeal, which contained several requests for items for relief, including “a declaration of wrongful action or inaction by CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario).”
After that decision, the tribunal says Black filed a 98-page revised notice of appeal and Chicken Farmers of Ontario sought to file a motion to dismiss that appeal too. For its part, the tribunal says Black chose to ignore its request to reframe the appeal just on the 300-bird limit and the appeal he resubmitted was just “as expansive as the original appeal.”
The tribunal found Black’s appeal was trivial, frivolous and vexatious along with being made in bad faith.
Black challenges that finding and the tribunal’s observation that he has a personal manifesto. “Am I supposed to be a totally cold fish with no stake in the game to bring this appeal?”
He asserts the tribunal’s rules are contradictory and arbitrary, noting the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act says the tribunal can dismiss an appeal if the person launching it doesn’t have a sufficient interest in the matter being appealed.
“You can’t have too little interest; you can’t have too much interest in the subject being appealed. It has got to be just right,” he says.
Black says he plans to request the tribunal reconsider its decision.
As well, Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Jeff Leal has the power to review, accept, change, dismiss or reject a tribunal decision and Black says when he approached Leal shortly after he was first appointed, Leal suggested that “they would be willing for me to meet with one of his chief policy advisers.” But Black is uncertain if that invitation still stands now that the tribunal has handed down its decision.
Black says pursuing a judicial review would be challenging because “I would be subject to court costs and legal fees of the other party if I was to lose that judicial review.” BF