Appeal Tribunal refuses to reinstate tobacco quota

Gubbels Farms Ltd. has grown tobacco under the marketing-system-of-the-day in Ontario since 1962. In 2008, Gubbels Farms Ltd. was licensed to produce approximately 418,000 lbs of basic production quota ("BPQ"). Gubbels Farms Ltd. did not participate in the Tobacco Transition Program ("TTP") and intended to continue producing tobacco for market. In 2009, the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board ("Board") removed the existing quota-based system for the control of production and marketing of tobacco and moved to a licensed-based system. The effect of this change was that the 418,000 lbs of BPQ associated with Gubbels Farms Ltd. ceased to exist. Also, before a licence to produce tobacco could be issued under the new system to Gubbels Farms Ltd., they had to be an eligible applicant and meet criteria set out in the General Regulations 2009 - 2010. Although Gubbels Farms Ltd. did not agree with the implementation of the licensed-based system, they complied with the new requirements and were issued licenses to produce tobacco in 2009 and 2010.

Gubbels Farms Ltd. appealed to the Board on April 1, 2010, asking for an exemption from the licensing requirements under the General Regulations 2009 - 2010 and for a refund of license fees paid to the Board for 2009 and 2010. The Board denied the request on April 22, 2010.  Gubbels Farms Ltd. appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for relief from the April 22, 2010, decision of the Board with the following request:

Gubbels Farms requests that their permanent BPQ be reinstated and that, as a result, they be licensed to grow tobacco under the previous system. Furthermore, Gubbels Farms requests that the Board refund to Gubbels Farms all monies that it paid to the Board for the redundant licences (#65) for the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons.

The Tribunal found that the legislative and regulatory framework relative to the Board's absolute authority over quota, which included the BPQ, was in effect when the Board made its decision to drop the quota-based system and move to the license-based system. In short, the Board had the authority to remove the BPQ.  The Tribunal also found that the relief sought by the Appellant to have their BPQ reinstated was impossible to grant under this appeal. Pursuant to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, the Tribunal could direct the Board to take any action that it is authorized to take under the Farm Products Marketing Act, and for this purpose may substitute its opinion for that of the Board.

This appeal, however, requested the reinstatement of the BPQ previously associated with Gubbels Farms Ltd. The Board's authority to issue tobacco quota was removed by the Farm Products Marketing Commission under the Farm Products Marketing Act Ontario Regulation 208/09 Tobacco - Powers of Local Board effective June 1, 2009. Furthermore, since the previous quota-based system no longer exists, there is no present or future opportunity for the Appellant to be licensed to grow and market tobacco under that previous system. Therefore, the licenses issued to the Appellant for the 2009 and 2010 growing seasons were not redundant. The fees associated with said licenses complete the licensing requirements of the Board and were authorized by Ontario Regulation 208/09.

Read the decision at: Gubbels Farms Ltd v. Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.

Court allowing negligent misrepresentation suit to proceed against Tobacco Marketing Board

An Ontario Superior Court Judge has dismissed most of the claims brought by tobacco growers against their marketing board, but is allowing a claim of negligent misrepresentation to proceed.  Justice Thomas Heeney found that the following claims related to the dismantlement of the tobacco industry in Ontario raised no reasonable cause of action (i.e. there is no legal basis for the claims):

• 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.
  

The one claim that did survive the motion to dismiss brought by the Marketing Board was related to a kiln conversion program.  In 2001, the manufactures told the producers, through the Board, that the burners in their tobacco kilns had to be converted from direct to indirect heat, to eliminate cancer-causing nitrosamines in the cured leaf.  This would involve an expenditure on the part of the producers of approximately $7,000 per kiln.  Producers were told by the Board that 25% of the kilns had to be converted in 2001 and the remainder in 2002. Producers were given three year projections in relation to crop size and, based upon this, the plaintiff made its business decision to make the required investment.  The Board neglected to get a signed commitment from the manufacturers in relation to crop size, with the result that they ended up being significantly less than the plaintiff had been led to believe, and insufficient to justify or pay for the cost of conversion.

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.