Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal
1Stone 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:
Walter Bak Farms Ltd. v Agricorp
Walter Bak Farms Ltd. v Agricorp 1997 ONAFRAAT 51
STATUTE:
Crop Insurance Act
HEARING:
DATE OF DECISION:
November 24, 1997
1997-51
NEUTRAL CITATION:
1997 ONAFRAAT 51
Walter Bak Farms Ltd. 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 Walter Bak Farms Limited, Bradford, Ontario, from the decision of AGRICORP (formerly known as The Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario) to deny it a claim under Regulation 233, Crop Insurance Plan for Onions.
Before:
Edward Mailloux, Vice-Chair; John Taylor, Vice-Chair.
Appearances:
None.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
This panel of the Board was convened for the purpose of considering whether the Crop Insurance Appeal Board has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in this case.
Walter Bak Farms Limited (Bak Farms) filed an appeal against the decision of AGRICORP (formerly known as The Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario) to deny the claim for a loss by the appellant under Regulation 233, Crop Insurance Plan for Onions. Not only did Agricorp refuse to honour the claim of the appellant, it takes the position that this Board has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Regulation 140/96 made under the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) provides as follows:
5.3. “The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes between the commission and an insured person arising out of the adjustment of a loss under a contract of insurance.”
The normal procedure to be followed is for the Board to set a hearing date at which both the appellant and the respondent would submit evidence and the Board would proceed with a decision. However, in this case, AGRICORP says the Board has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal based on the following grounds:
(1) The crop insurance plan for onions is intended to insure against the stated perils suffered before the harvest. The damage to this particular crop is alleged to have occurred while it was in storage. The respondent says it is clearly not insured under the contract.
(2) The insured failed to report the damage before the harvest.
(3) The insured failed to give the commission an opportunity to inspect the crop before the harvest.
(4) The total quantity of the harvest for this particular year exceeded the maximum for which the appellant was insured.
The appellant was asked to comment and make written submissions on the preliminary objections as stated in the written submissions by AGRICORP. This panel of the Board has reviewed all those written submissions on the matter of jurisdiction.
The effect of the objections by AGRICORP, if they were accepted by the Board, would be to dismiss the appeal without giving the appellant the opportunity to present its evidence at an open hearing. Any judicial body or quasi-judicial body such as this Board will dismiss an appeal at this stage of the proceeding only in the clearest of cases where the basis for the appeal is clearly outside the jurisdiction of this Board or there is a complete absence of merit to the appeal. Even in the case where an appeal may seem hopeless and may have little chance of success, the right to appeal cannot be denied to an appellant if there is any chance for success of the appeal at all. The submissions by AGRICORP that this is a clear case where the Board lacks jurisdiction are underpinned by factual allegations. At this point in time that is exactly what they are, that is, “allegations”. The appellant is entitled to respond to each of those allegations by presenting its own evidence that may well disprove the respondent’s allegations. Accordingly, the appellant cannot be denied its opportunity to have its day in court. This panel finds that AGRICORP, the respondent, has not displaced the onus on it that this appeal is outside the jurisdiction of this Board to hear or that the appeal has no merit whatsoever.
Decision:
The motion by the respondent to dismiss this appeal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied.
The appeal by Walter Bak Farms Limited shall proceed before this or another panel of the Crop Insurance Appeal Board in the usual way if pursued by the appellant.
This panel of the Crop Insurance Appeal Board does not consider itself seized of this appeal and this appeal may proceed either before the same panel or a panel differently constituted.
DATED at Guelph, Ontario THIS 24th day of November, 1997.