Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

1Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario

Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture,

de l’alimentation

et des affaires rurales

N1G 4Y2

Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232

Email:Tribunal@OMAF.gov.on.ca

1, chemin Stone Ouest

Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2

Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232

Email:Tribunal@OMAF.gov.on.ca

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL

APPEAL:

Elite Swine Inc. et al. v Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board

Elite Swine Inc. et al. v OPPMB [Motion Order] 2004 ONAFRAAT 39

STATUTE:

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act

HEARING:

DATE OF DECISION:

November 25, 2004

2004-39

NEUTRAL CITATION:

2004 ONAFRAAT 39

Elite Swine Inc. et al. v Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board [Motion Order]

IN THE MATTER OF THE FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT AND SECTION 16 OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS ACT:

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Appeals to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Elite Swine Inc., Cold Springs Farm Ltd., Progressive Pork Producer’s Co-operative Inc., Selves Farms Limited and Synergy Services Inc. from a decision of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board (OPPMB) not to rescind its decision to increase the service charge on all Ontario hogs by $0.80 per hog in its Board Regulation 9-2004 Schedule B.

Order of the Tribunal

Ruling on a Motion by the appellants requesting an order that the Ontario Pork Producers’ Marketing Board (OPPMB) supply actual costs it incurred with respect to the U.S. trade litigation initiated in 2004.

Positions of parties:

Mr. Shapiro asked the Tribunal to order the OPPMB to produce its expenditures to date on the trade challenges by agencies of the U.S. government.

Mr. Foran argued that these expenditures were irrelevant as the appeal was from a decision of the OPPMB to increase its service fee, which was based on estimates and a resulting budget. He said spending decisions made since April 2004 were beyond the scope of what was appealed. He also said the budget was a one-year budget and the only appropriate time to test it was at the end of that year, after all payments had been made.

Mr. Shapiro argued that the best test of the OPPMB estimates was what it had actually spent. He said the Tribunal should be provided with the best information possible and that included up to date expenditures.

Ruling:

The Board of the OPPMB made its decision to increase the service charge based on budgeted information.

The Tribunal does not think that trying to determine how the money was spent, or whether less or more money should have been spent will help it in reaching its decision.

As a result, the Tribunal has decided to deny the appellants’ request for an order that the OPPMB release its costs to date.