Google+

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Grinch Attacks Ontario: No Affordable Chicken for You

A review of the Tribunal's decision to reject our chicken appeal in Ontario has been completed.  The Tribunal's decision to refuse hearing our chicken appeal against Chicken Farmers of Ontario stands as-is, but the reasons change slightly.  That means:
  • No relief from the #ChickenMafia's oppression of Small Flock poultry farmers, and
     
  • No affordable chicken for Ontario consumers.


The OMAFRA Appeals Tribunal delivered their special gifts just in time for Christmas;
lumps of coal for 2 Christmas stockings.
   Click the image for full size version.

Quite a large lump of coal was delivered to the Christmas stockings of  15,500 small flock poultry farmers of Ontario.

Unfortunately, 13.6 million consumers in Ontario get a similar lump of coal dropped into their Christmas stocking too.  Canadians pay 50% to 300% more for chicken than what the rest of the world pays; thanks to the #ChickenMafia and their self-serving rules to protect their chicken monopoly.

Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO", members and leaders of the #ChickenMafia) operates their government created monopoly in favor of the 1,400 quota-holding chicken farmers in Ontario.

How is it that 1,400 quota-bearing chicken farmers can hold the entire province of Ontario hostage (all 13.6 million of us) with their self-serving rules that made these 1,400 people into millionaires, and may eventually allow them to become billionaires.  Quota-bearing chicken farmers are the highest paid farmers in Canada.

The 15,500 Small Flock chicken farmers in Ontario are small, independent, neighbourhood poultry farmers who are limited to raising no more than 300 chickens per year (enough to feed chicken to 10 people at the Canadian average rate of consumption in kg/yr).  Most Small Flockers grow less than half the permitted amount of chicken (due to the red tape, costs, and bureaucracy imposed on them by the #ChickenMafia).

The Tribunal previously decided to reject Small Flockers' chicken appeal as being frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith.  The Tribunal called Small Flockers out with three strikes in a row (see Blog posting Case Dismissed: The Appeal Tribunal has Spoken ).

On Oct. 24, 2014 a request was made, that the Tribunal's appeal decision be reviewed and confirmed (see Request for Reconsideration

After waiting 61 days, we now have the Tribunal's final answer, delivered on Christmas Eve.  The Review decided that the appeal stands as-is, but the reasons for refusing the appeal have been changed slightly.

Previously, the Tribunal had ruled that this appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith. Any one of those three deadly decisions was enough to kill the appeal dead.  The Tribunal decided to brand the appeal with all three allegations, for good measure.

With zombies, "double tapping" (ie. killing twice) helps to ensure the zombie never gets up again.  Apparently, the subject matter of this appeal was such a menace to the #ChickenMafia, the Tribunal felt it required triple-tapping to ensure the appeal was dead, DEAD, DEAD.

Contrary to the Tribunal, the Review decided there was insufficient evidence to support an accusation of being "frivolous".  The Review also found that calling the appeal "vexatious" was going too far.  Both of these two allegations were rejected by the Review process.

However, the Review confirmed the decision that the appeal was acting as an abuse of the Tribunal's processes, and/or in bad faith.  That was enough to continue rejecting this appeal.  As far as the Tribunal is concerned, this chicken appeal is permanently dead.

At this point, Ontario's Minister of Agriculture can review the Tribunal's decision in the next 30 days; rejecting it, or accepting it, or substituting the Minister's decision in place of the Tribunal's decision.

If turned down by OMAFRA's Minister, the Small Flockers' last chance is through a Judicial Review.

I am no lawyer, but it seemed to me that the appeal (and the request to review) presented some solid case law in support of Small Flockers' search for the restoration of their civil rights, and affordable chicken for the citizens of Ontario.  To twist that into a poorly substantiated allegation of frivolous and vexatious meant the Tribunal had gone way out on a limb, past the point of reasonable discretion which allowed the Tribunal to control its own processes.  It appears that the Review agreed; the Tribunal had gone too far, and the Tribunal was at significant risk of having their bias exposed and their decision overturned.  That could easily explain why they backed off during the review process.

As mentioned by the Tribunal's Vice Chair in his review decision, the case law was thin and scant for defining "bad faith".  Since "bad faith" is not well defined in the case law, the Tribunal had a wide latitude to define "bad faith" how they pleased; so they did.

The Tribunal accused Small Flockers of:
  • having significant animus towards the #ChickenMafia,
     
  • having a political manifesto, and
     
  • having a personal political agenda.
 The Tribunal used all three of these as sufficient reasons for judging bad faith and dismissing the Small Flocker's appeal.
As an analogy for clarification of Small Flockers rights and call for justice, I ask three questions:

  1. Did the Blacks in South Africa have a right and just animus towards the White Minority who persecuted the Blacks during Apartheid?
     
  2. Did the Blacks have a manifesto and personal political agenda under the ANC (African National Congress), for the restoration of their civil rights?
     
  3. Do the #ChickenMafia have animus towards Small Flockers, and a personal political agenda and manifesto to protect their monopoly at all costs?
Why are these reasons unacceptable and held against Small Flockers, but all three are OK for the #ChickenMafia? To me, this seems 1-sided and obviously biased in favor of the minority but powerful #ChickenMafia.
The lockers' review request raised a number of other reasons to reject the prior decision of the Tribunal.  The Review's decision mentioned these other reasons lockers requested be considered, indicating that the Review heard those additional complaints.  Any of these additional reasons could have breathed new life into this appeal if any of them had been accepted.  However, the review ignored all of these additional reasons from further consideration.  I wonder why?

The decision of the OMAFRA Tribunal Review is available here 

It appears that if the Tribunal gets its Christmas wish, the injured rights of Small Flockers, and the unaffordable chicken for all of Ontario will be denied.  Small Flockers will not enjoy their right to have their legitimate grievances heard in court.

Not only are Small Flockers rights trampled by the #ChickenMafia, the #ChickenMafia have convinced the OMAFRA Tribunal to protect the #ChickenMafia and their dirty deeds against Small Flockers.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Off-topic commercial spam that's posted so as to help sell your wares will be deleted.

On-topic comments, where you behave yourself and play nicely, will remain posted; whether they are pro or con. Everybody needs to fully understand all points of view so that we can find a solution that encompasses everybody's concerns. Give it your best shot.

If you decide to post, your posting becomes part of the public record, and SFPFC has full rights to use it (or not) in any reasonable manner or medium that suits our purposes.

Before posting, please proofread, and correct as necessary. If you subsequently discover a need to fix your previous posting, make an additional posting that refers to the original posting, then set the record straight.