Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West
Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Wallace v Agricorp
Wallace v Agricorp 1997 ONAFRAAT 39
STATUTE:
Crop Insurance Act
HEARING:
September 16, 1997
September 29, 1997
1997-39
NEUTRAL CITATION:
1997 ONAFRAAT 39
Wallace v Agricorp
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ontario Regulation 140/96 under the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) 1996, S.O. 1996,
C. 17, Sched. C.
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
An Appeal to the Crop Insurance Appeal Board by Edward A. and John Wallace, North Gower, Ontario, from a decision of the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario (AgriCorp), dated May 21, 1997, concerning the amount of claim under Regulation 222, Crop Insurance Plan for Corn.
Before:
Mr. Andrew Osyany, Vice-Chair; Mr. Edward Mailloux, Vice-Chair; Mr. Douglas Flook, Member.
Appearances:
Messrs. Edward and John Wallace, appellants in person.
Mr. Donald Good, counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Peter Wechselmann, counsel for the respondent, AgriCorp.
Mr. Peter Illnyckyj, on behalf of the respondent, AgriCorp.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
This matter was heard in Kemptville, Ontario on September 16, 1997.
Preliminary Matter
At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Good, counsel to the appellants, said that he and Mr. Wechselmann, counsel to the respondent, have identified a point of law that they felt to be critical to this hearing and they asked the Board to rule on this point of law.
The Board was advised that in this instance the final acreage report (FAR) was filed on June 30, 1996 and the insured paid the premium on July 10, 1996. AgriCorp revised the final acreage report on July 11, 1996. The legal point was the question of whether AgriCorp had the power to revise the final acreage report after the filing of the final acreage report and payment of the premium.
Mr. Good reviewed the legislation as it stood in 1996 together with the regulations and made the submission that the principles of normal insurance law apply in the case of AgriCorp. The relationship is one of contract between AgriCorp and the insured and that the contract is completed when the final acreage report has been filed and the premiums are paid. In his opinion, at that point AgriCorp should not be permitted to come in and make what amounts to unilateral changes to the contract. Mr. Good noted apparent ambiguities in the legislation and the regulations and submitted that the contra preferentem rule applies.
In response, Mr. Wechselmann also reviewed the applicable legislation and found no ambiguities.
Both counsel made reference to the brochure, entitled "1996 Crop Plans" put out by AgriCorp.
Decision & Reasons
The panel has considered submissions of the parties carefully.
The Board noted that Regulation 222, Section 14 requires payment of premium to be made at the same time as the final acreage report is filed. Section 15 requires the final acreage report to be filed within 10 days after planting is completed. Section 16 allows AgriCorp to revise the FAR subject to the right of the insured to object. If Mr. Good is correct in his argument, AgriCorp could never revise a final acreage report if the insured paid his premiums at the same time as filing of the FAR. The panel is of the view that it is reasonable for AgriCorp to have a period of time to review the FAR and make appropriate revisions.
This panel was not asked to determine whether AgriCorp acted within a reasonable period of time, nor what would normally be a reasonable period of time.
Upon the panel making this ruling, Mr. Good withdrew the balance of the appeal on behalf of the appellant.
The panel wishes to make a comment with regard to the brochure. It is undoubted that the main source of information for farmers is the brochure entitled "1996 Crop Plans". The panel has reviewed the wording in the brochure, as applicable to the final acreage report, and agrees with counsel for the appellant that the wording is not clear as to the rights of the farmer to object to the revision of the FAR by AgriCorp. The panel recommends that the next revision of the brochure clearly indicate the power in AgriCorp to revise the acreage as well as farm yields in the FAR. The booklet should also indicate that the insured has the right to object to AgriCorp's revisions.
DATED AT Shelburne, Ontario this 29th day of September, 1997.