Outcome: Denied / dismissed
-
Decision: Houweling v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision to deny a reduction in the fluid milk quota transfer assessment for Houweling. Houweling argued the decision was unfair and financially detrimental, as he did not enter the industry under the Graduated Entry Program. The decision was related to the Quota Transfer Assessment Policy.
-
Decision: Smith and Ruby v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision to cancel quota effective October 1, 1997. The appeal arose in the context of a matrimonial dispute, with Smith acting as Receiver/Manager for Risacca Livestock and Genetics Ltd. The decision was related to the cancellation of milk production quota under the Consolidated Order.
-
Decision: Coates v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision to deny the request to produce organic milk. Coates sought recognition to produce organic milk under the existing supply management system, citing higher production costs and lack of quota. The decision was related to the BCMMB Regulation.
-
Decision: Bifano Farms et al. v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision to establish a mandatory quota exchange program. Appellants argued the decision was unnecessary, economically unsound, and lacked administrative fairness. The decision was related to the establishment of a quota exchange program under the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act.
-
Decision: Alberni Valley Dairymen v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s decision regarding the filing within the 30-day statutory time limit. The issue was whether there were special circumstances to warrant an extension.
-
Decision: Alverez et al. v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of the BCMMB’s decision to refuse restoration of licenses and quotas, and to grant MSQ to appellants. The appellants challenged the refusal to restore licenses and fluid quotas, and the denial of MSQ allocation, related to milk production and quota management.
-
Decision: Mitchell v. Bhullar d.b.a. Bhullar Farm Produce
Complaint related to noise from propane cannons used for bird control on a blueberry farm in Langley.
-
Decision: Materi v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Summary dismissal of appeal of BCEMB’s decision to revoke Materi’s layer quota allotment of 500 birds. Materi argued that the BCEMB’s seizure of over-quota birds prevented him from using his quota.
-
Decision: Materi v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to revoke Materi’s layer quota allotment. The appellant alleged a mistake in the Summary Dismissal Decision and requested reconsideration under Rule 22. Panel declined to correct or clarify under Rule 22 (no clerical or jurisdictional error); held reconsideration improper and panel functionally exhausted.
-
Decision: Lychowyd v. Washtock and Barkwill
Complaint related to dust, noise, odour, and manure management from horse operations in Summerland.