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 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:
Black v Chicken Farmers of Ontario
Black v CFO [Notice of Intention to Refuse to Hear Appeal] 2014ONAFRAAT21
STATUTE:
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
HEARING:
N/A
July 31, 2014
2014-21
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2014ONAFRAAT21
Black v Chicken Farmers of Ontario [Notice of Intention to Refuse to Hear Appeal]
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 16 OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS ACT, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.16, AS AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An amended appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Glenn Black, Providence Bay, Ontario, concerning Chicken Farmers of Ontario Regulation No. 2425-2013 and the 300 bird chicken exemption policy and various other issues related to the supply management system for chicken and the regulation of the chicken industry; as well as costs, damages, awards and judgments requested by the appellant.
TAKE NOTICE THAT the Tribunal intends to refuse to hear the Revised Notice of Appeal submitted by Glenn Black for the following reasons:
The RNOA is vexatious or not made in good faith.
The RNOA seeks to litigate issues outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT Glenn Black shall have the opportunity to make written submissions to the Tribunal concerning its intention to refuse to hear his appeal.
Reasons for the Notice of Intention
Background Context
This Tribunal Panel released a decision on May 21st, 2014 striking Glenn Black’s Notice of Appeal with leave to re-file an Amended Notice of Appeal, restricted to his complaint about CFO Regulation No. 2425-2013 and CFO’s 300 bird exemption policy.
This Panel remained seized for any Amended Notice of Appeal.
The Reasons for Decision released on May 21st explained the rationale behind the decision to strike Mr. Black’s Notice of Appeal. Essentially the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over most of the subject matter, remedies and certain parties.
The Purpose of a Notice of Appeal
A Notice of Appeal is a pleading in litigation. Its purpose is to identify the legal issue(s) and to succinctly set out, the relief sought, the grounds relied on and the material facts supporting the claim. Its purpose is to clearly ascertain the issues between the parties. Another purpose of a pleading is to allow the opposing party to know the case it must meet. Mr. Black failed to satisfy these fundamental yet minimal standards.
The Original Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) and the Revised Notice of Appeal (“RNOA”)
Mr. Black’s NOA ran to 272 pages, most of which was attachments from various internet sources. (Mr. Black uses internet resources liberally.)
The main substantive NOA was 21 pages plus an included “Factum” of 43 pages.
The recently submitted RNOA runs to 98 pages.
Rather than presenting a focused appeal on a single CFO Regulation and Policy as directed by the May 21st Decision, Mr. Black expanded his appeal, at least in terms of the length of the substantive Appeal document.
The RNOA does not read as a focused appeal on a single CFO Regulation and policy. Rather, the RNOA is an agglomeration of treatises or manifestos.
Despite the Tribunal’s decision and rationale about the limits on its jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction, Mr. Black’s RNOA persists in challenging the supply management system for chicken in Ontario on grounds that include constitutional law, administrative law and the legislative policy decisions that underpin that system.
Despite the Tribunal’s comments about the remedies it can grant, Mr. Black’s RNOA still seeks, among other remedies, declaratory relief; orders that are “restorative or corrective”; recommendations to the government; orders for an accounting and disgorgement of unjust income; judgment that CFO has created constructive trusts and other trusts in favour of Mr. Black; punitive and exemplary damages.
Tribunal Authority to Control its Process
As with most administrative tribunals, the Tribunal has authority to control its process and to act where appropriate on its own motion. That authority has been animated by statutory provisions and the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
Sub-section 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act (the “MAFRAA”) authorizes the Tribunal to refuse to hear an appeal that is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith.
(4) The Tribunal may refuse to hear the appeal or, after a hearing has commenced, refuse to continue the hearing or make a decision if it relates to any order, direction, policy, decision or regulation of which the appellant has had knowledge for more than one year before the notice is filed under subsection (2.1) or, if in its opinion,
(a) the subject-matter of the appeal is trivial;
(b) the appeal is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith; or
(c) the appellant has not a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the appeal.
The MAFRAA confirms that the Tribunal has authority to refuse to hear an appeal under that Act on its own initiative.
The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure recognize the Tribunal’s authority to exercise its powers under the Rules on its own initiative.
1.03 The Tribunal may exercise any of its powers under these rules on its own initiative or at the request of a party to an appeal.
However, the Tribunal’s Rules are silent about what, if any, process the Tribunal should follow where it is concerned that an appeal may be trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith.
Section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, (the “SPPA”) provides the Tribunal with some guidance on the process in these circumstances. That section, gives the Tribunal authority to dismiss a proceeding that is frivolous, vexatious or commenced in bad faith. Those grounds are similar grounds to the MAFRAA but the SPPA broadens the grounds to include “matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal”. The SPPA establishes a process that includes notice of an intention to dismiss and an opportunity for the parties to make written submissions.
While “refusal to hear” (MAFRAA) and “dismissal” (SPPA) may appear different, the practical outcome would be the same: the appeal would not continue.
The Tribunal notes that subsection 4.6 (7) of the SPPA confirms that legislative provisions such as subsection 16(4) of the MAFRAA, “trump” the dismissal authority granted by the SPPA.
The Last Chance for Mr. Black’s Appeal
Adopting the process from the SPPA, the Tribunal will give Mr. Black one last opportunity to make written submissions to persuade the Tribunal that the appeal is not frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith. In addition, the Tribunal gives Mr. Black the opportunity to persuade it that it has the jurisdiction to grant the relief set out in section 11 (p. 96-97) of the RNOA.
The written submissions shall be limited to ten (10) pages, in a font not less than 11, with line spacing no less than 1.15 and regular margins.
Glenn Black shall file with the Tribunal five (5) copies of his written submissions under the Tribunal’s Rules within fifteen (15) days of this Notice.
Glenn Black shall serve a copy of his written submissions on all other parties to the RNOA.
Each responding party shall serve and file responding written submissions, limited to five (5) pages, within ten days of receipt of Mr. Black’s submissions.
No other submissions shall be filed or considered.
After considering all the written submissions, the Tribunal will communicate its decision concerning the continuation of Mr. Black’s appeal.
Dated at Brampton, Ontario this 31st day of July, 2014.