Yesterday, I received the Tribunal's acknowledgement of receipt of our Notice of Appeal from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Appeal Tribunal. I agreed to all of their proposed dates, but somehow, the Tribunal scheduled us to different dates. The Motion Hearing is scheduled at Tribunal's offices at 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario Canada (45 minutes from Toronto ON Canada), beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday May 14, 2014.
This motion is likely a preliminary ploy by Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") to stop the appeal before it gets started.
As CFO sees it, I have no rights whatsoever, and they are the mighty and powerful CFO, and don't appreciate me questioning their actions and authority.
If you don't mark this date on your calendar and show up at the appointed time, I will likely be there all by myself, staring into the hungry, snarling, foaming mouths of CFO's lawyers; from 1 to 6 Toronto lawyers who will attempt to rip me apart and feed me to their young; all while being paid $500 per hour for each of these legal wolf-mercenaries.
Bring popcorn and your smart phone for live video opportunities. This will likely be interesting.
This hearing, and if we ever get to the Tribunal, could cost up to $3,000 per hour that CFO has to pay their lawyers. Of course, CFO will fund the protection of their monopoly by raising CFO chicken levies that are charged to quota-based chicken farmers. Ontario's factory chicken farmers who pay those levies will, in turn, be reimbursed by raising the farm gate chicken prices that the farmers enjoy. Chicken processors will be forced to pay these higher farm gate chicken prices, so the retail price of chicken will eventually be raised accordingly.
So again, the consumer gets shafted by trying to seek an end to the previous and ongoing shafting of consumers.
My apologies to all Canadians for increasing your pain through higher chicken prices in the short term. Hopefully, there is a rainbow and pot of gold that will eventually be found through this appeal process.
What will we be discussing at this motion hearing? CFO likely feels I have no right to appeal, the Tribunal has no authority to hear my complaints, and I have been scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, trivial, my appeal has no merit, it's an abuse of the judicial process, moot, bad faith, have an improper purpose, or discloses no reasonable cause of action, and therefore I lose any right to appeal.
As to the Tribunal appeal itself, there is a short and long version available. Take your pick:
The Long Version: The Gory Details of my Appeal
The Short Version: 7 Questions
Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”) &
Ontario’s Farm Products Marketing Commission (“OFPMC”)
- Currently, small flock (ie. non-quota) chicken farmers are subject to government authority and powers that have been delegated to, or vested in Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”). Since these delegated and vested powers imposed on Small Flockers originated from the governments of a free and democratic country, does the Appellant and other Small Flockers have the legal right to membership in CFO, to attend CFO meetings, to receive CFO information, to run for a CFO elected office, and vote in CFO elections so as to have democratic representation at the CFO Board?
- If the answer to Q #1 is no, then should Small Flockers be exempt from the By-laws, rules, policies, procedures, powers, authority, rulings, invasion of privacy, and threat of enforcement currently planned and practiced by CFO?
- Are there other responsibilities, duties, and constraints owed by the Defendants (ie. both CFO and OFPMC) for the benefit of the Appellant or others, that irrevocably flow with the government powers that are delegated and vested in the Defendants, above and beyond those expressly enumerated in the Farm Products Marketing Act and Regulations?
- Under Section 1.01 of the Federal-Provincial Agreement-Chicken 2001, all members of the chicken Supply Management system agreed “to work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers”. Have the Defendants breached these duties under this agreement? If yes, does the Appellant, Small Flockers, the consumer, and/or the general public have vested third party rights, either under this agreement or otherwise, that they can use to seek legal redress from the Defendants?
- Do the Defendants have a duty to be open, transparent, accountable, prudent, and reasonable; and to consider, accommodate, and be responsive to the rights, needs, expectations, complaints, and suggestions from: (a) the Defendant’s respective stakeholders? (b) The Appellant? (c) Small Flockers? (d) the consumer? and (e) the general public?
- Is there sufficient objective, unbiased evidence to conclude that the Defendants have fully, faithfully, consistently, effectively, and efficiently: (a) developed plans; (b) avoided risks; (c) implemented their express and implied duties in a timely and good faith manner for the greater good of the consumer, the general public and the Defendant’s respective stakeholders; (d) periodically assessed their own performance, promptly took corrective action as needed, and continuously improved their performance?
- If the answer to Q #6 is no, what duties do the Defendants have to assess their past performance, identify the cause of their inadequate past performance, determine the optimum solutions, take immediate corrective actions, verify and validate that their remedial actions are fully implemented and effective, and ensure their prior poor conduct (as well as all similar potentials) are avoided forevermore?