Outcome: Denied / dismissed
-
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.
-
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.
-
Decision: V.I.P. Produce Ltd. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to grant temporary authority to Rage’s Farms Ltd. and recommend agency designation to VIFP. V.I.P. Produce Ltd. raised issues regarding procedural integrity and agency designation. The decision was related to the agency designation and marketing of regulated vegetables on Vancouver Island.
-
Decision: BC Vegetable Greenhouse I, L.P. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s jurisdiction decision to regulate export production. BC Vegetable Greenhouse I, LP challenged the BCVMC’s authority under the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act and NAFTA implications. The decision was related to the marketing of vegetables in export trade.
-
Decision: V.I.P Produce Ltd. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to grant conditional agency status to VIFP in association with BC Fresh. VIP and IVCA contested the decision, arguing for a single agency on Vancouver Island and citing procedural defects. The decision was related to the agency designation and governance issues within the Vancouver Island vegetable industry.