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:
Chicken Farmers of Ontario v Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission
Chicken Farmers of Ontario v OFPMC [Decision on Procedural Matter] 2001 ONAFRAAT 2, 2001 ONAFRAAT2 1
STATUTE:
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
HEARING:
DATE OF DECISION:
April 4, 2001
2001-21
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2001 ONAFRAAT 2, 2001 ONAFRAAT2 1
Chicken Farmers of Ontario v Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission [Decision on Procedural Matter]
IN THE MATTER OF THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING 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 Chicken Farmers of Ontario from a decision of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission dated December 1, 1999 relating to the system for the allocation of live chicken to Ontario processors.
Ruling
Mr. Goldblatt asked the Tribunal to provide clarification as the process to be used by Mr. Shapiro in presenting his evidence as a member of a panel. Mr. Goldblatt was of the view the Mr. Shapiro should be treated as counsel to the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors and he said that it would be improper for him to have an opportunity to question himself, as a member of a panel. He also objected to Mr. Shapiro presenting his evidence on pricing after his evidence on the other five issues under consideration.
Mr. Shapiro stated that he had been presenting evidence before the Tribunal as a member of a panel for twenty years and that there had been no objection in all that time. He said that this would expedite the process of presenting evidence. He also pointed out that Mr. de Valk would be in the same position in that he would be both giving evidence and leading his other witnesses.
Mr. Sternberg agreed with Mr. Goldblatt that it was unusual to have counsel act as a witness. He said he had no objection to the use of panels of witnesses or the order in which Mr. Shapiro chose to present his case. Mr. McIlroy concurred with Mr. Sternberg.
Mr. de Valk observed that he had also acted as a witness and directed other witnesses in proceedings in the past and that he may wish to do so in this hearing as well. He said that he recognized that would not have the ability to redirect himself but he felt he should still be able to redirect his witnesses.
Mr. Bos said he was in the same situation as Mr. Shapiro and Mr. De Valk. He said he had no objection to the use of panels of witnesses and that parties should be permitted to present their case in the order they see fit.
It is the Tribunal’s view that Mr. Shapiro and others are to be considered as representatives of their Association. They may give evidence in the case, and be cross examined. They are then allowed to lead evidence from a panel to elaborate on the issues they wish to bring forth in this hearing.
As to the matter of pricing, Mr. Shapiro will be allowed to be a part of that panel, but may not lead the other members of the panel. Evidence given by Mr. Shapiro on pricing must be given with his opening evidence if he intends to lead the panel on pricing.
Dated the 4thday of April, 2001.