Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal
1Stone Road West
Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2
Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232
Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales
1 Stone Road West
Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2
Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232
Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Ellicott et al. v Agricorp
Ellicott et al. v Agricorp [Audio Recording Decision] 2001 ONAFRAAT 24
STATUTE:
Crop Insurance Act
HEARING:
DATE OF DECISION:
May 3, 2001
2001-24
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2001 ONAFRAAT 24
Ellicott et al. v Agricorp [Audio Recording Decision]
IN THE MATTER OF: Ontario Regulation 140/96 under the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) 1996, S.O. 1996, C. 17, Schedule C.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An Appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Harriet Ellicott, Allan Smith, Lynn Caldwell, Gary Caldwell,
Bill Cook, Bill Davis, Glenn Davenport, James Davey, Simon Deboer, Don Dietrich,
Kevin Doyle, Lorne Faust, Joseph Hachey, Darcy Healey, William (Bill) Herron, Elmer
Herron, Blake Hyde, Harvey Kerr, Bev Kingston, Peter Kotzeff, Brent Kuhl, Lloyd Kuhl,
Chris Patchell, Paul Long, Don MacArthur, Rod MacGillivray, Eldon MacKinnon, Larry
McLeod, Henry K. Meyer, Merv. Misch, Bruce Patchell, Bruce and Heather Ribey, Dean
Ribey, Albert Sandink, Richard Slumskie, Howard Tedford, Murray Tedford, Doug
Trelford of decisions by AGRICORP to deny them payment of claims concerning their
1999 hay crop under Regulation 380/97 and the Crop Insurance Plan For Hay and Forage.
Before:
Denis O’Connor, Vice Chair
Background:
This matter was conducted by way of a written hearing, with the consent of the parties.
Ms. Harriet Ellicott asked the Tribunal to rule on her request, made pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, that the appellants be authorized to have an audio recording made of the proceedings.
The applicable sections of Rule 16 are:
16.01 No person shall take or attempt to take a photograph, motion picture, audio recording or other record capable of producing an audio or visual reproduction by electronic or other means at a Tribunal hearing unless authorized by the Tribunal.
16.03 A request for authorization under Rule 16.01 may be made to the Chair or the Vice-Chair presiding at a hearing at the commencement of a hearing or, after a hearing has commenced.
16.04 The Tribunal shall afford the parties and other participants at a hearing an opportunity to make representations to the Tribunal in respect of any application under Rule 16.01 or to vary any authorization previously granted by the Tribunal.
16.05 On an application for authorization under Rule 16.01, the Tribunal shall consider,
(a) the likelihood of disturbance or disruption of the hearing;
(b) the likelihood of undue discomfort for any participant;
(c) whether there is a public interest in having procedures which are accessible to all those interested or affected; and
(d) such other matters as the Tribunal deems appropriate.
The Evidence and the Findings
Ms. Ellicott submitted her request to the Tribunal that the appellants be able to have the proceedings audio recorded with the explanation that she and Mr. Allan Smith were representing 36 farmers; that many of these farmers would not be able to attend at the hearing due to the time demands of farming; and that she and Mr. Smith felt an obligation to provide these farmers with as complete and accurate report of their efforts as possible.
Ms. Ellicott explained that an audio technician was preferred to a court reporter, because an audio technician was less expensive, and because an audio recording would give farmers the feeling of having been there. She emphasized that, should her request be granted, the appellants intended to hire an experienced, professional audio technician. She also offered to provide a copy of the recording to the Tribunal for its records.
Ms. Lee Ann Lennox made a written representation to the Tribunal on this matter on behalf of AGRICORP. She indicated that AGRICORP was opposed to the application. She explained that AGRICORP understood that early May was a busy time of year in the agriculture industry, but that AGRICORP felt that attending and participating in the hearing should be a priority for farmers appealing the 1999 forage simulation results.
Ms. Lennox pointed out that the Tribunal provides a detailed summary of the proceedings in its written decisions and that appellants who choose not to attend will receive a copy of the Tribunal’s decision in this matter.
Ms. Lennox indicated she was concerned that a portion of an audiotape of the proceedings may be taken out of context and possibly misconstrued by someone not directly involved in the appeal process.
The Tribunal finds that the appellants who wish to hear the evidence presented on this matter have the opportunity to be present at the proceedings. The Tribunal does not accept the appellants’ rationale that an audio recording of the proceedings is necessary.
The Tribunal notes that while it is a quasi-judicial body and therefore less formal than the courts, it does require that order be maintained. Notwithstanding that the appellants propose to use a professional audio technician, the Tribunal finds that there is potential for the proceedings to be disrupted and for witnesses to be disturbed by the proposed audio taping of the proceedings.
Decision and Reasons:
After careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal decided to deny the application for authorization to have the proceedings recorded by an audio technician.
The Tribunal believes that the proceedings are accessible to all interested parties.
Dated in Guelph, this 3rd day of May, 2001.