Category: Regulated marketing appeal
-
Decision: Arnaud v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decisions to reconvene a meeting without notifying all members and to remove Arnaud from the election ballot. Arnaud challenged the BCVMC’s authority and procedural fairness under the B.C. Vegetable Marketing Scheme.
-
Decision: Glenmore Valley Greenhouses et al. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision concerning exemption from pooling of sales and agency fee structure. Appellants challenged the pooling requirement and the dual marketing fee structure, arguing it was unfair and financially burdensome.
-
Decision: Kenpo Greenhouses Ltd. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to enforce compliance with General Orders. Kenpo Greenhouses Ltd. challenged the decision on grounds of procedural fairness, bias, and jurisdiction over cost recovery. The decision was related to violations of General Orders #52 and #54.
-
Preliminary decision: James v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Procedural decision regarding the appellant’s request for disclosure of a confidential greenhouse re-measurement report used by the BCVMC in pooling and fee appeals. The Board ordered the report produced for review and reserved the right to redact privileged content before any disclosure.
-
Decision: Lillooet Growers and Packers Ltd. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to not renew a wholesaler licence. Lillooet Growers and Packers Ltd. contested the non-renewal of their licence. The decision was related to the issuance of a wholesaler licence under the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act.
-
Decision: James d.b.a. Glenmore Valley Greenhouses et al. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision concerning exemption from pooling of sales and agency fee structure. The appellants sought exemption for greenhouse production from pooling requirements and a change in the fee structure from a dual marketing fee to a per box fee.
-
Decision: Calais Farms Ltd. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to deny Calais Farms Ltd.’s request to transfer product marketing from BC Hot House to Global Greenhouse Produce Inc. The decision was related to the transfer of product between agencies under the quota system.
-
Decision: Fraser Valley Pea Growers’ Association v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to set the 1989 processing pea price. The appellant claimed bias and unreasonable decision-making regarding increased production costs and market conditions.
-
Decision: BC Hot House Foods Inc. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to deny adjournment of a hearing on Global Greenhouse Produce Inc.’s agency application. BC Hot House Foods Inc. argued inadequate notice and preparation time regarding competition concerns with Global. The decision was related to the procedural handling of agency applications under the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act.
-
Decision: James v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to deny the production of On-Farm Food Safety Reports. James sought exemption from pooling, arguing the reports were relevant to product quality and pricing. The decision was related to the pooling of sales and agency fee structure.