The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision by the appeal committee related to Alberta's crop insurance program. The regulations that govern crop insurance provide that the decision of the appeal committee is final and binding on the parties; only a challenge to the decision by way of judicial review is possible.
In this case, crop insurance denied claims by a farmer for its 2009 canola crop, its 2009 Canadian Prairie Spring wheat crop and its 2010 Canadian Prairie Spring wheat crop. Crop insurance declined to pay the benefit to the farmer on the basis that the farmer's post harvest assessments were incomplete and inconsistent with actual crop production. On the appeal of this denial of coverage, the appeal committee decided that credibility was an issue. The committee found that where there was a conflict in the evidence between the farmer and the crop insurance witnesses, the evidence of the crop insurance witnesses was to be preferred. The committee cited examples where the farmer under-reported grain sales or was not forthright about grain sales until confronted with third-party documentation obtained during the crop insurance investigation. The committee, which consisted of five farmer members, was left with the impression that the farmer "had not been honest and forthcoming in his dealings with AFSC during the claims process and subsequent contact with Program Cross Compliance and Investigation, despite several opportunities to make full and honest disclosure of the production and sales of crops."
The Court ruled that the standard of review applicable to this judicial review was a standard of reasonableness: if the Court found that the appeal committee's decision was "reasonable", then the decision would stand. On review of the record from the appeal process, the Court concluded that the appeal committee's decision was, in fact, reasonable, and denied the judicial review application on that basis. In particular, the Court found that it was abundantly clear that the committee had found evidence of false or misleading reporting from the farmer. The Court could find nothing unreasonable about that conclusion and the denial of the crop insurance claims.
Read the decision at: F Prins Potatoes Ltd v Agriculture Financial Services Corporation.
Storm
Showing posts with label credibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label credibility. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2015
Alberta Court upholds denial of crop insurance on basis of false or misleading reporting
Friday, November 22, 2013
Corn delivery case turns on witness credibility
The Plaintiff company in this case from New Brunswick claimed that it had delivered 8 loads of wet corn to the Defendant company at harvest and that the Defendant company failed to pay for the corn. The Plaintiff valued the claim at over $33,000. The Defendant company denied that there was a contract calling for payment to the Plaintiff company at all. Instead, the Defendant said that it had agreed to purchase the corn from an entirely different third party; the price to be paid for the corn was to be credited to the outstanding account the third party had with the Defendant company.
The judge at trial commented: "There are two starkly different versions of the facts of this case. Ultimately, the disposition of this case will turn on findings of credibility." The judge determined that neither the representative of the Plaintiff company nor the third party (an uncle and his nephew) were credible witnesses and found as follows:
The judge at trial commented: "There are two starkly different versions of the facts of this case. Ultimately, the disposition of this case will turn on findings of credibility." The judge determined that neither the representative of the Plaintiff company nor the third party (an uncle and his nephew) were credible witnesses and found as follows:
Based on my findings of fact, it is clear that there never was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of corn. The arrangement was that the third party, KT, would deliver bulk wet corn to the plaintiff’s premises in Centreville to be picked up by the defendant, the value of which would be applied by the defendant to the third party’s outstanding account. There being no contract of purchase and sale between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff’s action is dismissed. Given that there is no liability on the defendant, the defendant’s third party claim is dismissed.Read the decision at: Taylor’s Feed & Tires Ltd v Brennan Farms Ltd.
Labels:
breach of contract,
bulk,
contract,
corn,
credibility,
damages,
farmer,
harvest,
New Brunswick,
sale
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)