Category: Regulated marketing appeal
-
Decision: Northern Interior Dairyman’s Association and Mainland Dairymen’s Association v. BCMMB — Freight Rate Dispute
The BCFIRB ordered the BCMMB to implement a total pooling system across eight provincial zones. BCFIRB reviewed the contested $2.50 per HL freight rate cap and concluded it aligns with sound marketing policy.
-
Procedural decision: Primary Poultry Processors Association of BC v. British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board
The B.C. Marketing Board (BCMB) denies the Primary Poultry Processors Association of BC’s application for a stay of the BCCMB’s March 12, 2003 decision approving Rossdown Farms Ltd.’s custom killing arrangement.
-
Decision: Primary Poultry Processors Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board
Reasoning for appeal decision in appeal of the BCCMB’s March 12, 2003, decision to approve Rossdown Farms Ltd.’s custom kill arrangement. The BCCMB is directed to develop a comprehensive new entrant program for processors.
-
Decision: Primary Poultry Processors Association of B.C. v. B.C. Chicken Marketing Board
BCFIRB dismissed the PPPABC’s appeal against BCCMB’s Pricing Orders #077 and #078, which set the live chicken price for periods A-86 and A-87. The decision addressed procedural fairness and the pricing process.
-
Decision summary: Ponich Poultry Farm v. British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board
Summary of appeal of BCCMB’s refusal to renew two specialty permits for 1000 birds each under the new entrant and specialty program.
-
Decision: Pottruff v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to deny a Chick/Pullet Placement Permit (CPP) application. The appellants argued that BCEMB lacked authority to regulate chicks under 19 weeks, failed to provide reasons, and fettered its discretion. The decision was related to BCEMB’s authority and biosecurity regulations.
-
Process guidance: NPMA Process Flowchart
Outlines the procedural steps and timelines involved in the NPMA appeal process, including filing requirements, pre-hearing activities, and the issuance of written decisions and potential judicial reviews.
-
Decision: Pan-O-Ramic Farms (1990) Ltd. v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision to not renew Pan-O-Ramic Farms’ transporter contract.
-
Decision: Pan-O-Ramic Farms (1990) Ltd. v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision to not renew a transporter agreement. The appellant argued for a duty of fairness and due process, claiming the decision had serious financial consequences and was beyond the BCMMB’s jurisdiction. The decision was related to the BCMMB’s transportation policy.
-
Decision: Pan-O-Ramic Farms (1990) Ltd. v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision to not renew Pan-O-Ramic Farms’ transporter contract. Pan-O-Ramic Farms argues procedural fairness and reasonable expectation of renewal. The decision was related to BCMMB’s regulatory authority and contract terms.