Category: Regulated marketing appeal
-
Decision: Eggstream Farms Ltd. v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision concerning Temporary Restricted Licence Quota allocation. Eggstream Farms Ltd. contested the denial of additional TRLQ for organic egg production, alleging breach of a settlement agreement and unfair treatment in quota allocation.
-
Decision: Eggstream Farms Ltd. v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to deny additional Temporary Restricted Licence Quota (TRLQ) for organic egg production. Eggstream Farms Ltd. alleged breach of a settlement agreement and sought additional TRLQ allocation. The decision was related to the Revised TRLQ Program.
-
Decision: British Columbia Egg Processors Council v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to reduce buy-back remuneration to processors. The British Columbia Egg Processors Council challenged the fairness of the decision, arguing it placed BC graders at a disadvantage and sought either rescission or amendment to align with Canadian averages. The decision was related to buy-back remuneration policy.
-
Decision: Eggstream Farms Ltd. v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to deny a request to reinstate a withdrawn appeal concerning TRLQ allocation. Eggstream Farms Ltd. argued that the BCEMB’s actions frustrated a mediated settlement and sought to adjudicate the issue. The decision was related to the administration of the TRLQ program.
-
Preliminary Decision: Elkview Enterprises Ltd. v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
The preliminary decision addresses whether the appeal should be dismissed as “frivolous, vexatious or trivial”. The appeal concerns a challenge to the BCEMB’s decision regarding the amendment of its Temporary Restricted Licence Quota Permit.
-
Decision: Cedardale Poultry Ranch Ltd. v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to deny levy abatement. Cedardale Poultry Ranch Ltd. sought abatement due to flock cycle adjustment requested by its buyer, Lucerne Foods Ltd. The decision was related to the BCEMB’s Uniform Levy System policy.
-
Decision: Delight v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to enforce an order for the seizure and disposal of layers. The decision was related to an order of the British Columbia Marketing Board dated June 6, 1989, and a Consent Order of December 22, 1989.
-
Decision: Delight v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to authorize the seizure and disposal of layers exceeding the allowable unregulated limit.
-
Decision: Delight v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s seizure decision to enforce orders. The appellants contested the seizure of layers, arguing against the authority and notification process.
-
Consent Order: Delight v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
The British Columbia Marketing Board issued a consent order extending the deadline for the appellants to maintain up to 2400 layers from December 31, 1989, to January 31, 1990, while keeping all other aspects of the original decision unchanged.