Tribunal denies CFFO accreditation

Friday, November 9, 2012

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

A bid by the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) to be reaccredited as a general farm organization has been dismissed, leaving the future of the organization uncertain less than a week before its annual convention.

“Changes to the CFFO’s by-laws, policies and procedures may be required” and “could take some time . . . to remedy” in order to meet the legislative requirements for accreditation, says the Nov. 7 ruling by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

“If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to do so, it would provisionally accredit the CFFO for a period of three years, commencing on the date of this decision, to allow the CFFO to make the necessary changes and then apply for reaccreditation,” the order says. “Unfortunately, the Tribunal does not have that jurisdiction, and is therefore required under the existing legislation to dismiss the CFFO's application.”

The CFFO did not immediately respond Friday morning to a request for comment.

Most of the organization’s difficulties arise from the CFFO’s inability to treat people making a payment to the CFFO under Section 21 of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act as members in 2011.

Last May 23, the CFFO, and other general farm organizations, were refused re-accreditation by a different Tribunal panel because an interpretation of the 1993 Act, by the ministry’s legal services branch, concluded that directing a farm business registration fee of $195 to a particular organization did not confer membership in that organization. That would require a separate step, which the panel’s decision refers to as “an explicit membership agreement.” There were also questions about specific membership categories in the CFFO.

The organization underwent another accreditation hearing in July. The panel issued an interim order Aug. 12 which requested the organization to make further submissions. These were filed Aug. 24.  

Interviewed last month, Nathan Stevens, the CFFO’s interim general manager, said membership categories had since been rejigged and bylaws were changed to reflect what the membership categories mean. They were endorsed at a June council meeting and were to be adopted at the CFFO convention in mid-November.

However, the Nov. 7 Tribunal ruling notes that those district association meetings may have no legal standing. District associations held their meetings before the dis-accreditation ruling May 23. Because there was no explicit membership agreement in place, the November Tribunal decision notes, the officers of the district associations were elected by people who were not qualified as members of the farm organization.

In addition, the Tribunal points out a substantial number of officers and directors of the district associations do not appear on the CFFO membership lists.  For that and a number of other reasons, the affiliates do not meet the requirements under the regulations.

The Tribunal also noted that the CFFO recently amended bylaws to provide that the members of the executive board are “designated delegates.”  This provision may conflict with a section of the regulation “which requires all electors to be chosen by members.”

While there is a process for individual members to make concerns known to the executive board, there is “no direct evidence” that the board has a duty to respond to the concerns as required under the regulations.

“The CFFO’s good faith is not in question. The difficulties posed by the legislation however is that the Tribunal has no discretion to accredit the CFFO on the basis of good faith in the absence of a finding that all of the legislative requirements have been met.”

The re-accreditation process for Ontario’s three general farm organizations has been plagued with delays. According to the May 23 ruling, the CFFO, Ontario Federation of Agriculture and NFU-Ontario made a joint submission to the Tribunal at the end of August, 2011, nearly nine months earlier.

Kirk Walstedt, the Tribunal’s chair, says in an email today that “the matters at issue in these particular applications were not simple ones, and merited a very thorough and thoughtful examination of the submissions filed by the CFFO in relation to the criteria that must be met for accreditation.” He notes that decisions for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union – Ontario will be released “once they are completed.”

Douglas Tindal a spokesperson from the office of provincial Agriculture Minister Ted McMeekin, says the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act does not give the minister the right to review Tribunal decisions. (The minister does have this right under other agriculture-related legislation).

“The decision is final,” Tindal says.

In a statement emailed by Tindal, McMeekin says he will take “immediate steps” to ensure that Ontario’s three main general farm organizations “have a stable transition period in which to address the issues raised by the Tribunal.”

Tindal says the ministry is looking at several options, including adjustments to some of the Act’s regulations. As well, the organization can make the requested adjustments and reapply for accreditation, he says.

The Tribunal has raised the same concern about membership with the OFA and NFU-O. These organizations are also awaiting Tribunal decisions. Tindal says he could not speculate or comment on whether the other two general farm organizations’ request for accreditation would fail. However, he called the idea a “reasonable assumption.” BF