This is somewhat of an act of desperation. It is unclear if a Tribunal is able to self-correct any errors that it may create from time to time. In this case, that system of correction will be put to the test.
I complain about:
- The lack of clarity, and the numerous ambiguities throughout the decision.
- The silence of the Tribunal on the key case law that is relied upon. Did the Tribunal agree with these relevant case law? Do they feel bound by it, that their decisions must comply and follow the case law established by higher courts of law, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada, or can they safely ignore these cases, and strike out on their own path? I believe the Tribunal should have commented on each case relied upon, saying how the Tribunal interprets that case, and how the Tribunal applies it to this case. Note that I, as Appellant, was the only one to use and refer to any case law. Perhaps that is why the Tribunal ignored the case law.
- Similar to the case law, I made a number of arguments and explanations to explain and justify my positions. All or most of these were silently ignored by the Tribunal. I wonder why? I believe the Tribunal should have provided reasons why they ignored or disagreed with those arguments, or why they were insufficient to convince the Tribunal to adopt my position.
- The Tribunal is supposed to decide all the issues before it. There were a number of issues and motions that I made that were not decided. Some of those motions could have cured the alleged defects that the Tribunal complained about. Rather than considering those motions, the Tribunal ignored them. I want to know why those motions were not considered.
- How the punishment doesn't fit the alleged offense(s). The Tribunal has used the legal equivalent to the nuclear bomb to swat a pesky fly. The Tribunal said they feared that I would use this appeal as a toe-hold to attack the entire Supply Management system. It seems I am punished for what I might do, rather than what I have actually done, or what I should have done in the past. This is tantamount to thought police, or pre-crime punishment as in the movie Minority Report. The Tribunal says they are in control of their Tribunal. Then let them control their process during the hearing of my appeal, so their fear isn't realized. However, let the appeal proceed on the proper hearing about the illegal and unjust stripping away of the rights and freedoms of Small Flockers by the out-of-control CFO.
- Reasonable apprehension of bias against one of the Tribunal's panel members, and the acquiescence or abdication or demurring of the other two panel members, instead of stepping in and helping prevent or correct these obvious biases and unfair actions against our appeal.
- Other issues
Read our request for the Tribunal's re-consideration of our valid complaints against CFO and the #ChickenMafia here:
Request for Re-consideration 78.47 kB 14 pages
For the record, here is our Blog posting on the Tribunal's decision where they refuse to hear our appeal
Case Dismissed: The Appeal Tribunal has Spoken