by BETTER FARMING STAFF
Spokesman Bill Mitchell says the marketing board faxed a request Monday to Minister Leona Dombrowsky to “vary” the appeal tribunal’s decision that requires the organization to repay the 15 per cent assessment on quota sales to three producers east of Toronto. He says Dombrowsky’s office has confirmed that it has received the letter.
Delivered June 23, the decision concerned an appeal made by four dairy producers – Keith and Ron Jarvis of Seagrave, Dale McFeeters of Woodville and Bill Denby of Sunderland – after the board rejected their request for an exemption from the transfer assessment. The assessment was introduced in November 2006 to control rapidly rising quota prices.
The Tribunal ruled that the marketing board has the authority to introduce such an assessment, but did not clearly communicate its plans to immediately introduce the assessment without a phase-in period.
In its 26-page ruling the Tribunal said Dairy Farmers of Ontario failed to explain why the assessment’s introduction was so urgent, failed to conduct an impact analysis on how the change in policy would affect producers’ business strategies and did not allow enough time to gather feedback from producers about the change in policy before its implementation.
In the case of the producers who registered complaints, the Tribunal ruled that the board had not provided adequate warning about when the change in policy would be implemented, leaving them with no opportunity to sell their quota without being subjected to the assessment.
“There is a duty to uphold the general common law principle of procedural fairness which lies on every public authority making administrative decisions which is not a legislative nature and which affects the rights, privileges and interests of an individual,” the ruling stated.
The Tribunal ordered the marketing board to cough up $153,180 for Denby, $511,305.52 for the Jarvises and $139,268 for McFeeters within 30 days of its receipt of the decision.
According to ministry staff, legislation requires Dombrowsky to decide on the issue within 30 days of receipt of the appeal. She can opt to extend the period of deliberation indefinitely - as long as the decision to do so is made within the original 30-day period.
Mitchell says the reasons for the request for a review of the Tribunal’s decision were outlined in the letter to Dombrowsky but would not comment on them. “While it’s in the Minister’s hands it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss it,” he says. BF
