Outcome: Denied / dismissed
-
Preliminary decision: Russell v. Bradshaw
Complaint related to excessive dog barking and howling from a property. Because the dog barking did not arise from a farm business, BCFIRB had no jurisdiction, and the complaint was dismissed.
-
Decision: Saputo Inc. v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Appeal of BCMMB’s amendment decision to implement a traditional allocation policy. Saputo Inc. challenges the amendment on grounds of contravention of commitments, improper links, invalid penalties, and discretionary powers. The decision was related to “Part VII – Allocation of Milk Supply Among Vendors” of the BCMMB Consolidated Order.
-
Decision: BCFIRB to Rossdown Farms Ltd. — Request for reconsideration of home weeks
BCFIRB (as the B.C. Marketing Board) denies Rossdown Farms Ltd.’s request to reconsider a previous supervisory decision (January 17, 2003), which restricted its production pickup to a single “home week”.
-
Preliminary decision: Ridgeway v. McLuckie
Complaint related to noise from barking dogs on a property with sheep in West Kelowna. Complaint dismissed as the respondent was not operating a farm business under the FPPA.
-
Decision: Rempel v. British Columbia Egg Marketing Board
Appeal of BCEMB’s decision to deny conversion of an unregulated flock permit to quota and increase the quota to 1000 layers. Rempel’s request was based on compliance with rules and alleged representations by Egg Board members. The decision was related to BCEMB’s General Orders and unregulated flock policy.
-
Decision summary: Korthuis d.b.a. Try Poultry Farms v. British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board
Summary of appeal of BCCMB’s decision to impose production penalties for unauthorized production. The BCCMB’s order required 381-day stand down.
-
Decision Summary: Van Herk v. British Columbia Milk Marketing Board
Summary of the appeal of BCMMB’s quota revocation decision to cancel the appellant’s quota and producer licence under the Graduated Entry Program. Central issues were whether the appellants were “actively engaged” in milk production and whether the Board’s process created procedural unfairness and bias concerns.
-
Decision: Rainbow Poultry Ltd., Stam’s Egg & Poultry Ltd., and V&H Joint Venture v. British Columbia Chicken Marketing Board
Appeal of BCCMB’s practice of funding the BC Chicken Growers’ Association through levies collected from all chicken growers, including those who have withdrawn from the Association. The appellants argued that the funding was not in accordance with the Chicken Marketing Scheme and sought greater accountability and transparency in the funding process.
-
Dismissal: Prokam Enterprises Ltd. v. British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission
Appeal of BCVMC’s decision to approve a delivery allocation transfer with conditions. Prokam Enterprises Ltd. challenged the requirement that the designated agency be BCfresh instead of Island Vegetable Cooperative Association. The appeal was withdrawn.
-
Decision: Tri-Gro v Pyke, 2001 ONCA
Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Complaint related to odours from mushroom farm operations in Whitby. The issue was whether the odours constituted a nuisance and if the farm practices were protected under the Farm Practices Protection Act.