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, chemin Stone Ouest
Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: appeals.tribunal.omafra@ontario.ca
Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Courriel: appeals.tribunal.omafra@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL: Ontario Federation of Agriculture Accreditation
OFA Accreditation (RE) [Interim Order] 2012 ONAFRAAT 23
STATUTE: Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993
HEARING: July 20, 2012
DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2012
2012-23
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2012 ONAFRAAT 23
Ontario Federation of Agriculture Accreditation [Interim Order]
IN THE MATTER OF: SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An application to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) for accreditation under Subsection 4(1) of the Act.
Before: Nicholas Richter, Vice-Chair; Jane Sadler Richards, Member; Mary Field, Member
Appearances:
Neil Currie, General Manager, OFA
Lori Perkes, Director, Finance and Human Resources, OFA
Jason Bent, Manager, Farm Policy Research Group, OFA
Mark Wales, President, OFA
INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
This matter was heard by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on July 20, 2012, in the Tribunal Boardroom, Guelph, Ontario. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (the “OFA”) applied to the Tribunal to become an accredited farm organization pursuant to section 4(1) of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 (the “Act”).
Section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria that a farm organization has to meet in order to qualify for accreditation. A number of those criteria include the word “member” or “members” (see, for example, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12 of section 5(1), as well as sections 5(3)(a) and 5(4)(a) and (b) of the Regulation). At the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal raised an issue as to whether the OFA was attaching different meanings to the word “member” for different criteria in presenting its case for accreditation. In some instances, the word “member” was used to mean a person with whom the OFA had an explicit membership agreement, which is consistent with the Tribunal’s decision of May 23, 2012, denying reaccreditation to the OFA. In other instances, the word “member” was given a wider meaning to include, for example, all registrants under section 21 of the Act who had directed their payments to the OFA and had not requested a refund.
This inconsistent use of the word “member” is in apparent conflict with a basic principle of statutory interpretation, often described as the “presumption of consistent expression.” As stated in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed., at pp. 214-215, “[i]t is presumed that the legislature uses language carefully and consistently so that within a statute or other legislative instrument the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meanings.” This presumption is particularly strong where the provisions in which the repeated words appear are close together or otherwise related to each other (see Sullivan, supra, at pp. 215-216 and 221).
Given that this issue was raised late in the hearing, that the OFA was not represented by counsel, and that this is a legal issue involving statutory interpretation, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to give the OFA an opportunity to make written submissions as to whether the presumption of consistent expression applies to the interpretation of the word “member” in section 5 of the Regulation. The Tribunal also invites written submissions on this issue from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, who has a statutory right to make submissions pursuant to sections 4(4) and 5(2) of the Act.
A similar order is being made in pending accreditation proceedings involving the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union – Ontario. The parties and the Minister are welcome to file individual or joint submissions (in any combination) as they see fit.
Order of the Tribunal
The Tribunal therefore orders that:
The OFA and the Minister shall serve on each other and file with the Tribunal their written submissions on the interpretation issue described above, if any, by no later than August 24, 2012.
This panel shall remain seized of this matter pending a final determination of the OFA’s application.
Dated at Hamilton, Ontario this 10th day of August, 2012.