- Refusal to share information: It was alleged that the Board was privy to information that it did not share with the producers that was critical to the survival of the industry.
- Negotiating an exit strategy: It was alleged that the Board shifted its emphasis from its duties as a regulator and marketer of tobacco to one that it is not authorized by statute to do: that is, to negotiate with the federal and provincial governments for a compensation package for tobacco producers that would result in tobacco production ceasing permanently in Ontario. This involved seeking compensation for the lost value of tobacco quota, lost income, lost property values and transitional assistance.
- Failure to properly negotiate annual crop sizes and to seek other markets: It was alleged that the Board called for an end to tobacco production in Ontario in 2006, and initially refused to negotiate the size of the 2006 crop. This had a negative effect on the actual crop size that was ultimately arrived at. In so doing, the Board acted negligently.
- Passing a regulation that prevented renting or share-growing quota: It was alleged that, in 2006, the Board wrongfully and without statutory authority passed a regulation which prevented the plaintiff from renting or share-growing its production quota if it sold the tobacco kilns located on its farm.
Justice Heeney found that the Statement of Claim issued against the Marketing Board did disclose a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and ruled that this part of the claim could proceed toward trial. One important difference between the surviving claim and those that were dismissed was that the kiln conversion decision by the Board was an operational decision as opposed to a policy decision. Government bodies cannot generally be held liable for bad policy, but they can be held liable for negligently putting the policy into action.
Read the decision at: Marlor Farms Inc. v. The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.