by SUSAN MANN
The Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal considered irrelevant factors when it denied accreditation to National Farmers Union–Ontario last year, but the farm group meets the criteria under provincial legislation and should be accredited, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.
Judge Robert N. Beaudoin handed down his decision Oct. 16 after a hearing was held in Ottawa in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on Sept. 10. NFU-O requested a judicial review of the tribunal’s decision denying it reaccreditation as a general farm organization.
Ontario’s Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act permits accredited general farm organizations to draw their funding from membership dues that farmers are required to pay each year when they apply for farm business registration. Farmers must pay the dues to an accredited organization of their choice and register their business to become eligible for government-funded business risk programs and several other programs. The membership dues form a major portion of the general farm organizations’ funding.
The Act gives the tribunal the power to award the general farm accreditation.
NFU-O asked the court for an order to set aside the tribunal’s 2012 decision to deny it accreditation. NFU-O also asked for an order directing the tribunal to accredit the organization.
NFU-O president John Sutherland says he’s happy with the decision but he’s also cautious because the tribunal still has time to appeal. In a Thursday news release he further notes “council is pleased with Judge Beaudoin’s decision in our favour, although we are frustrated about having to spend precious resources to obtain a fair assessment about meeting the criteria for re-accreditation."
Sutherland said Thursday night he hadn’t yet reviewed the 24-page decision in detail.
Beaudoin says in his written ruling an order “directing the tribunal to accredit the NFU-O should be issued.”
Mark Cripps, spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, says the next step in the process is a court order needs to be prepared by NFU-O for the judge to sign.
NFU-O was the successful party in the hearing and it’s the one to write the order, he notes. But the tribunal doesn’t have to wait for the court order to “grant accreditation to NFU-O,” he says.
The tribunal has 15 days from the date Beaudoin’s decision was released to serve notice it’s requesting leave to appeal, Cripps notes.
The tribunal couldn’t be reached for comment.
Cripps says the agriculture minister represented by the Crown law office civil counsel was granted intervener status at the September hearing with the consent of the tribunal and NFU-O. “The minister’s position at the hearing focused on how the Act should be interpreted. This interpretation was adopted by the court.”
Beaudoin says for 10 years the tribunal accepted NFU-O as an organization representing farmers in Ontario and didn’t identify any change in circumstance in its decision being reviewed by the court “that warranted a change in this finding.” NFU-O was first accredited in 2002.
The ministry argued the tribunal considered factors during NFU-O’s 2012 reaccreditation hearing that weren’t among the criteria in the Act for an accreditation application, Beaudoin says. The tribunal looked at:
- The corporate structure of both the Saskatchewan-based National Farmers Union and NFU-O;
- The circumstances of NFU-O’s incorporation in 2002;
- The roles and functions of the corporate officers of each organization;
- Legal agreements between the two organizations;
- NFU’s financial statements; and
- How annual general meetings are conducted.
But the ministry said none of these factors was included as criteria for farm group accreditation under the Act. There’s also nothing in the Act or its regulations authorizing or requiring the tribunal to investigate or make findings on these factors, he says.
The tribunal regarded the NFU/NFU-O relationship as pivotal and characterized it in negative terms, he says. But the Act doesn’t stop an accredited organization from having an affiliation with a national group.
He notes the tribunal didn’t have the discretion to deny accreditation to NFU-O if the organization met the criteria under the Act “as I have concluded it has done.”
The tribunal argued its finding that NFU-O didn’t meet two of the criteria for reaccreditation was reasonable and was based on detailed oral and verbal evidence obtained during two days of hearings, Beaudoin says.
There’s some urgency to getting NFU-O reaccredited, the judge notes. Delays in dealing with NFU-O’s reaccreditation application in 2012 meant NFU-O’s name didn’t appear on the 2013 farm business registration forms, and the organization “received very little revenue for this calendar year.” The forms for the upcoming registration process are printed in November and if NFU-O isn’t reaccredited its name won’t appear again. That means it won’t receive funding for a second year, making it impossible for the group to continue operating.
Cripps says no court costs were awarded in the case. BF
Comments
Should farm organizations be lobbying Chrysler,Marks Work , TSC ., ect for discounts or special deals or just bei doing a job of representing farm interests with the gov't ,municipalities, policies,ect.?? I didn't join OFA too get a discount on a pick up. kg kimball
Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed in accordance with our guidelines.
Anonymous comment will be published if resubmitted and signed
It is very good to get special deals or discounts many other groups do that for their members ex hosteling international yet still lobby the gov. the Chrysler deal has been good both sides and i drive a chevy products. Many times it is better to have a group price than every body trying to beat the average price. We should look at fuel and other opportunties when it works out for both sides , but as farm group we must watch how and why we do this and not forget that we are working for the farmers not Chrysler, TSC, or Monsanto, etc.
Or for the Gov. !!
What sometimes I wonder is guys buying an OFA membership just too get "employe pricing" on a truck or because they believe in OFA and want too support something that can lobby gov'ts. I would rather buy an FNA membership if I want discounts. As above poster said that we don't want too lose core values . OFA like churches,civic organizations,fraternities, ect. may have a big membership list but few have a very high percentage of active members . Not sure how farm community can get truly represented when we have 3 registered farm organizations saying different things and farmers themselves bickering about SM or ethanol ,ect. Prosperity we see right now may be the downfall of "farmers working to-gether" . On this site signing ones name should be required as if you believe in what you write you should own up too it-kg kimball
Actually I switched back to OFA this year because of a specific discount.
It certainly isn't because I support OFA...I don't like most of the wimpy policies of any of the three organizations...so it was easy to make the switch.
Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.
Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.
That would be like saying we should only have one political party, different organizations represent different types of farmers and values, CFO seems to represent a high percent of SM farmers who just happen to be Christian, the NFU tends to represent smaller and organic farmers and the OFA mostly represents farmers who want the discounts and are happy to just complain about issues rather then resolve them, in fear of offending anyone.
Based on a sliding scale, the OFA likely has the lowest member involvement of all 3 organizations, I think its because its just to bureaucratic and hardly ever takes a stand on anything to controversial, I think this is mostly because its higher profile members usually want to get appointments to other more lucrative positions once they have served their time limit, rather then return to full time farming, that doesn't nearly pay as well.
Sean McGivern
The only fault OFA has is they try to represent all farmers, at times it may seem like an impossible job but least l give them credit for trying. The other two organizations choose the easier route by specializing in their membership.
When it comes to credibility with the Ontario Government, l think the OFA is far ahead of the other two.
Without supply management to defend, the CFFO would have no reason to exist, and now without the Canadian Wheat Board to defend, what reason does the NFU have for existing?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
you don't want to take advantage of some perks then don't show your card...pretty simple
I wonder if NFU will ask for the money that they were not able to collect as damages ? They should be allowed to get it .
Sort of makes one wonder if a former NFU person who blew the false whistle is worried that he might also be the target of a court case .
NFU issue was a waste of time and money ...and for what purpose??
I can imagine membership will increase again ..PFO is
Anonymous comment modified by editor
Now that's really a stretch and an attempt to bully someone.
The NFUO needed some scrutiny and they received it. They're back in business...for now. Personally, I view them differently now that I know more ...
Anonymous comment modified by editor
Post new comment