Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
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: appeals.tribunal.omafra@ontario.ca
1, chemin Stone Ouest 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: National Farmers Union Ontario Accreditation
NFU-O Accreditation (RE) [Interim Order] 2012 ONAFRAAT 24
STATUTE: Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993
HEARING: July 18, 2012
DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2012
2012-24
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2012 ONAFRAAT 24
National Farmers Union Ontario 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 National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) for accreditation under Subsection 4(1) of the Act.
Before: Nicholas Richter, Vice-Chair; Jane Sadler Richards, Member; Mary Field, Member
Appearances: Ann Slater, Ontario Coordinator/President, NFU-O Sarah Bakker, Office Administrator, NFU-O
INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
This matter was heard by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on July 18, 2012, in the Tribunal Boardroom, Guelph, Ontario. The National Farmers Union – Ontario (the “NFU-O”) 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 NFU-O 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 NFU-O had an explicit membership agreement, which is consistent with the Tribunal’s decision of May 23, 2012, denying reaccreditation to the NFU-O. 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 NFU-O 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 NFU-O was not represented by counsel, and that this is a legal issue involving statutory interpretation, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to give the NFU-O 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 Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The parties and the Minister are welcome to file individual or joint submissions (in any combination) as they see fit.
In addition, the Tribunal requires further documentation from the NFU-O with respect to the qualification that appears in the auditor’s report on the NFU-O’s financial statements. At the hearing, the NFU-O filed a letter from the auditor indicating, with respect to this qualification, that “[t]his report is common with most not-for-profit organizations and is specifically reported upon within the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Handbook” (commonly known as the “CICA Handbook”). The Tribunal requires the NFU-O to file with the Tribunal copies of the relevant portions of the CICA Handbook that address the qualification appearing in the auditor’s report, together with any additional materials that may assist the Tribunal in determining whether financial statements and an auditor’s report containing the qualification in question are prepared in accordance with the standards set forth in the CICA Handbook.
Order of the Tribunal
The Tribunal therefore orders that:
The NFU-O 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.
The NFU-O shall file copies of the relevant portions of the CICA Handbook that address the qualification appearing in the auditor’s report on the NFU-O’s financial statements, together with any additional materials that may assist the Tribunal in determining whether financial statements and an auditor’s report containing the qualification in question are prepared in accordance with the standards set forth in the CICA Handbook, by no later than August 24, 2012.
This panel shall remain seized of this matter pending a final determination of the NFU-O’s application.
Dated at Hamilton, Ontario this 10th day of August, 2012.