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: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
1 Stone Road West Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
APPEAL: Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. v CFO
Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. v CFO [Procedural Order] 2014 ONAFRAAT 4
STATUTE: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
HEARING: January 21, 2014
DATE OF DECISION: February 13, 2014
2014-04
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014 ONAFRAAT 4
Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. v CFO [Procedural Order]
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 Appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. (LPF), Monkland, Ontario, from a decision of Chicken Farmers of Ontario dated December 18th, 2013 declining LPF’s request for additional kilograms of calculated based.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: A request by the Ontario Independent Poultry Processors dated January 21, 2014 for intervenor status at the hearing.
Before: John O’Kane, Vice-Chair; Glenn Walker, Vice-Chair; Corry Martens, Member
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Background
On January 14th, 2014, the Tribunal held a Pre-hearing Conference to deal with a number of procedural matters pertaining to the above appeal filed by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. (LPF).
One of those procedural matters involved identifying parties and other interested persons and the scope of their participation in the hearing.
The parties to the appeal are the appellant LPF and the respondent Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) and the respondent Riverview Poultry (Riverview).
Prior to the January 14th Pre-hearing Conference, the Tribunal Coordinator conducted inquiries to determine if any other parties, such as the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) or the Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) had an interest in this appeal. AOCP confirmed in writing that they were not interested in seeking status in this appeal.
The Tribunal Coordinator advised the hearing panel that she had contacted Mr. John Slot of the OIPP before Christmas concerning this appeal, at which time he advised that this matter was of no interest to the OIPP.
On January 16th, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to the parties with directions related to the hearing duration, venue and a process for motions related to documentary productions.
On January 21st, 2014, the Tribunal received a letter from the OIPP advising that after further consideration, the OIPP requests intervenor status in the hearing.
The Tribunal invited written submissions from the parties in respect of OIPP’s request for intervenor status. LPF’s submissions supported OIPP being granted intervenor status. CFO’s and Riverview’s submissions both opposed OIPP’s request for intervenor status. The Tribunal then provided OIPP a final opportunity to make written reply submissions.
Pursuant to Rule 13.01 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to deal with OIPP’s request for intervenor status as a written hearing. All parties and the OIPP had availed themselves of the opportunity to make full written submissions and, therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that procedural fairness had been achieved.
In addition, the Tribunal determined a written hearing was appropriate because the subject matter of a request for intervenor status was well suited to a written hearing. There was no evidence that was contentious and no issues of credibility. The issue of intervenor status is substantially a question of law. Having already held a Pre-hearing Conference in January to address, among other things, intervenor applications, it would not have been convenient to the parties or economically efficient to convene yet another Pre-hearing Conference, particularly in light of OIPP’s earlier confirmation that it had no interest in the appeal issues.
Intervenor Status
Section 16(10) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act (the Act) is the operative provision in this context and provides as follows:
Parties
(10) At any hearing under this section, any person entitled to receive notice under subsection (8) and any person having a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the appeal may be a party to the appeal and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act applies.
The Act therefore grants the Tribunal discretionary authority to determine party status.
The SPPA and section 14(9) of the Act are the sources of the Tribunals’ authority to make rules of procedure, and Rule 33.08 is the operative rule in this context and provides as follows:
In an appeal under subsection 16(1) or (2) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act any person entitled to receive notice of a hearing and any person having a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal may be a party to the appeal.
Both the Act and the Tribunal’s Rules incorporate the concept of “sufficient interest” as a requirement for status as a party.
As this Tribunal has previously determined1 in the context of applications for status, the OIPP in this case must satisfy the Tribunal that it has an adequate or appropriate interest in the appeal issues to warrant status, either as party or intervenor.
OIPP has failed to demonstrate that in the context of this appeal, it has an adequate or appropriate interest in the appeal issues. The appeal issues flow from a private contract and while CFO’s decision making authority was engaged, the essence of the issues is rooted in that contract. CFO’s decision making authority in this case does not engage considerations of broader policies or regulations related to processor supply allocations.
The outcome of this appeal relates solely to the calculated base of LPF and Riverview. The calculated base of other chicken processors in Ontario is not in issue and, therefore, the OIPP’s members have no stake or interest in this appeal.
OIPP’s submissions suggested that it could offer “inside knowledge of the history of the Ontario processor allocation system and the evolution of this system since its inception.”
That submission engaged a consideration different than “party” status under the Act and Rule 33.08. That submission engaged a consideration of the intervenor status at common law described as amicus curia. The common law jurisprudence does give courts a discretionary authority to allow participation short of party status to entities that demonstrate that they have evidence that the parties do not have to offer the court about the broader historical, societal and industry context or expertise that the parties do not possess, where that perspective will be of assistance to better inform the decision maker.
However, even if we accept that Mr. Slot from OIPP has that broader perspective about the system and the industry, we are not convinced that the nature of the issues in this appeal require such evidence. OIPP does not need any sort of status in the appeal for any party to lead that evidence. If any of the