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:
Lafrance v Director of Regulatory Compliance, Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program
Lafrance v Director of Regulatory Compliance, ORMQP [Preliminary Decision] 2001 ONAFRAAT 17
STATUTE:
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
HEARING:
DATE OF DECISION:
March 21, 2001
2001-17
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2001 ONAFRAAT 17
Lafrance v Director of Regulatory Compliance, Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program [Preliminary Decision]
IN THE MATTER OF THE MILK ACT AND SECTION 16 OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ACT.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An Appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Rosaire and Lina Lafrance, St. Albert, from the July 27, 2000 decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance, Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program, to maintain test results which indicated Somatic Cell Count levels in the penalty range on the appellants farm on six occasions in 1999.
Before:
John Taylor, Vice Chair Arden Schneckenburger, Member
Appearances:
Pascale Giguère, counsel to the appellants
Geoffrey Spurr, counsel to the respondent
Background:
Parties to this appeal asked the Tribunal to rule on:
Whether to allow witnesses to participate in the Hearing by way of videoconferencing.
Whether to require the disclosure of additional information related to laboratory test results.
Whether to require the disclosure of the names of witnesses.
Ms. Giguère explained that she might want to call a witness from Kentucky who was unable to attend in person in Alfred, ON. She also thought that a witness from Guelph might be needed and she asked that both these witnesses be permitted to testify by way of videoconference.
Mr. Spurr objected to witnesses testifying by videoconference as he submitted that he would not be able to cross-examine these witnesses effectively and this would prejudice his client. He also objected as the names of these witnesses had not been disclosed and he did not believe that he would have adequate opportunity to call rebuttal witnesses.
Ms. Giguère pointed out that she had provided Mr. Spurr with a synopsis of the anticipated testimony of these witnesses and she submitted that their testimony would not be on matters that were in factual dispute. She objected to the disclosure of witnesses as she pointed out that she would not normally be required to provide this information and she did not want to have her ability to call additional witnesses jeopardized.
Ms. Giguère said that she also had a concern with disclosure as she had received monthly and quarterly summaries of test results rather than individual test results of the somatic cell counts of her clients’ herd.
Mr. Spurr stated that he had disclosed all the information he had on the test results, that the Director received this data in summary form and that he was now trying to obtain the data she requested from the laboratory.
Ms. Giguère said that if the request to allow for videoconferencing were granted she would be prepared to have her client pay the cost to use the technology in the United States but that she felt the Tribunal should pay the cost of using the facilities in Alfred.
Ms. Giguère asked that it be put on the record that her clients’ request for a fully bilingual panel has been refused, that this was unfair in her view and that, while it had not been decided how they would proceed, she may ask for an adjournment on the matter as a result.
The Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to allow for testimony by videoconference of the witnesses described by Ms. Giguère. However, it agreed with Mr. Spurr that it would be fair to require the disclosure of the names of these witnesses prior to the Hearing.
The appellant raised the issue of a request for a fully bilingual panel. This panel has decided that the lawful deputy of the Tribunal has adequately addressed that issue and this panel declines jurisdiction to make any further order in that regard.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
The appellant may arrange for the two witnesses she described to the panel to testify by way of videoconferencing. The cost of this procedure is to be borne entirely by the appellant. Ms. Giguère is to confirm with the Tribunal and Mr. Spurr as to whether or not she will use this technology by noon Friday, March 23, 2001. In making this order, this panel does not confer on the appellant an absolute right to presenting evidence before the Hearing in this form. The appellant assumes the risk caused by any technical difficulties.
Both parties shall disclose the names of all witnesses anticipated to be called by noon Friday, March 23, 2001. This does not preclude that additional witnesses may be permitted to testify by the panel.
The Director and/or a representative of the Food Industry Division, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs shall endeavor to produce individual test results on somatic cell counts from the Lafrance herd (producer number 367087) on tests taken between September 01, 1999 to March 20, 2001 as soon as possible. The data provided should include the dates the samples were obtained, the dates they were tested and the test results, to the extent that such information is available.
This order does not preclude the Hearing panel from making any variations to this order.
Dated in Tilbury, Ontario on this the 21st day of March, 2001.