OMAFRA Minister Jeff Leal: Will he Rescue Small Flockers?

Honorable Jeff Leal,
Ontario Minister of
Agriculture, Food, & Rural
Affairs.  Will he rescue
Ontario's small flock
chicken farmers?

OMAFRA Minister Jeff Leal:  Will you Rescue Small Flockers?

If Minister Leal won't help, will you?   See below.

Small Flockers' appeal to the OMAFRA Appeals Tribunal needs to be rescued from the clanking, orthodox bureaucracy of the Appeal's Tribunal and the Chicken Supply Management system.

We have been through the mill and back trying to assert our rights and find a reasonable solution, an epic journey of 680 days (1.9 years) and counting, as follows:

1. We filed our initial complaint with CFO on 2013/02/21.
2. CFO refused to act
3. Because CFO refused to act on our complaints, we asked OFPMC to intercede on our behalf.
4. OFPMC refused to help small flockers, suggesting we file an appeal to the Tribunal.
5. We filed an appeal with the OMAFRA Tribunal.
6. CFO objected to our appeal, and asked that it be summarily dismissed, so we were forced to defend our appeal.
7. The appeal wasn't dismissed, but the Tribunal decided we must narrow our scope and re-file our appeal.
8. A revised appeal was submitted to the Tribunal.  This revised appeal was designed to fully comply with the Tribunal's previous decision, 
9. CFO again objected to the re-stated appeal, again calling it trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith.
10. We were again required to defend our appeal against being summarily dismissed.  This initial response wasn't enough to stop the CFO avalanche against us.
11. The Tribunal notified us that they would dismiss our appeal unless we could provide just cause to allow it to continue.
12. We re-doubled our efforts and responded why it would be unjust to dismiss our appeal
13. Our appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.
14. We believe the Tribunal erred when it ignored all the case law that defended our position, so we asked that the Tribunal's decision be re-considered.
15. During the review of the Tribunal's decision, they found that two out of three grounds for dismissing our appeal (frivolous and vexatious) were decided in error, so they were reversed and overturned by the Tribunal Review, but the third reason (bad faith) was allowed to stand.
16. The Minister of Agriculture has the right and duty to intercede on all decisions by the Tribunal on behalf of the government and public policy issues.  Today, just 680 days (1.9 years) after our start, we now file a letter requesting OMAFRA's Minister Jeff Leal to review the Tribunal's decision, and intercede on our behalf, asking the Minister to order the Tribunal to hear our appeal on the Small Flock Regulation ON-Reg. 2484-2014

All we want is to recover the civil rights of Ontario's small flock chicken farmers.  We also hope that the appeal will help get more safe, affordable, nutritious, and locally grown chicken for all regions of Ontario.

Our appeal has been fought against and resisted every step of the way by Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").  Currently, CFO has a virtual monopoly for Ontario chicken, and uses their government granted regulatory powers to protect their monopoly and maximize their special interest profits.

Ontario consumers pay higher chicken prices (ie. 50% to 300% higher than the rest of the world), and have restricted choices in the types and varieties of chicken available in Ontario stores.

To me, the regulatory powers granted by the government to CFO should be used for the greater good of all Ontario citizens.  CFO doesn't see it that way.  CFO believes the governmental powers granted them are to help them move from multi-millionaire, to become billionaires.

Our letter to Minister Leal, requesting his review and intervention under Section 18 of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affair Act can be viewed here:

 SFPFC's Letter Requesting Minister Leal's Review and Intervention.

I have tried my best for almost two (2) years to advocate for the civil rights of small flock farmers.

Today, I need your help, or all of that effort will soon be lost.

I realize you are busy, just like me and everybody else.  I also realize that if you leave this page before taking the necessary actions right now, you are likely to get busy again, then forget to do it later, or will never find the time.

Therefore, help us right now.

I believe it's worth 2 minutes of your time, no matter how busy you are.

There are thousands of others who have no access to a computer, or will never find this posting and its request, but those thousands of Ontario citizens desperately need your help through the hope that this appeal can result in more locally grown, affordable chicken.

You can help rescue Ontario's small flockers by contacting Minister Leal, encouraging him to help Ontario and its small flockers, saying something similar to the following:

Dear Minister Leal:
I respectfully request that you review and intervene on the Tribunal's decision about the small flock quota exemption appeal (Black Vs. CFO), so as to require the OMAFRA Appeals Tribunal to hear this appeal in full on the issue of the Small Flock Exemption Regulation, ON-Reg. 2484-2014

Minister Leal's Contact Information

Phone: 416-326-3074

Fax: 416-326-3083

Email:  minister.omafra@ontario.ca

On-line Comments Form:   http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/about/comment.html

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.

Request for Re-Consideration

OMAFRA Appeals Tribunal previously decided to summarily dismiss our appeal before it was heard.  We have now filed a written request within the 30 day deadline, asking the Tribunal to re-consider its decision to summarily dismiss our appeal.

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

So what do you think happens next?  Will the Tribunal be able to self-correct its flawed processes?  Will we have to proceed to the second-last step in this tortuous path to justice?

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

Request Tribunal's Reconsideration

I am planning to request the Tribunal to re-consider its decision to dismiss my appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith.

The Tribunal ruled on Sept. 24th, 2014 that my appeal for the rights and freedoms of Small Flockers would be summarily dismissed before any of the issues could come to trial (see Blog posting  Case Dismissed: The Appeal Tribunal has Spoken).

I have just finished the draft, and look forward to your feedback and suggestions to improve this draft before submission to the OMAFRA Appeals Tribunal.  Here is the draft:

Request for Re-Consideration  16 pages   49.8 kB

I have until close of business on Friday Oct. 24th to get it submitted, so we don't have much time.

I appreciate your effort to find the time to carefully read it and share your ideas.

Case Dismissed: The Appeal Tribunal has Spoken

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeal Tribunal has refused to hear Small Flockers' appeal of the Small Flock Exemption Regulation as it is judged to be "frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith."

The Tribunal has consistently complained about lack of powers and jurisdiction for finding liability against Chicken Farmers of Ontario, and similar issues that were requested as relief for Small Flockers.  In response to the Tribunal's alleged limitations, both Versions 3 and 4 of our appeal had those contentious issues removed.  For some unknown reason, the Tribunal got hung up on Version 2, and would consider neither Versions 3 nor 4. 

In addition, I supplied the Tribunal with over 23 different legal precedents that supported the contentious relief that I requested from the oppressive and unconstitutional parts of the Small Flock Regulation; including a number of Supreme Court rulings that directly supported our case.

The other Respondent parties refuted neither our legal arguments, nor the case law presented, nor offered case law in support of the Respondent's position.  In spite of that, the Tribunal is silent about all of the case law presented except one, and then decided against us in what appears to be a contradiction of the case law.

How that can occur is a mystery to me, but that's where we are at.

The Tribunal mentioned in their decision that there was significant animosity between Small Flockers and CFO.  It seems that the Tribunal felt that this was one more reason not to allow the appeal, for they discussed it in this decision, as well as the previous two decision; obviously sufficiently important to bear repeating three times.  Does the Tribunal expect that if litigants are not the best of friends, they shouldn't be allowed access to the Tribunal?  I find this very strange.

The Tribunal said that I acted in bad faith because I had a "personal political manifesto".  That was the accusation made against me by CFO, but I don't remember agreeing to that accusation, so it seems the Tribunal leaped to assume CFO's accusation was true; no evidence required.  It appears that the Tribunal wants and expects me to be a cold fish, a dis-interested party, with no stake in the outcome.  To me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  If fact, Section 16.(4).(c) of MAFRAA says that one of the reasons that the Tribunal can dismiss an appeal is that "the appellant has not a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the appeal".  So the Tribunal dismisses my appeal because I'm too interested, but can dismiss my appeal because I have insufficient interest.  Appellants must need to be like Goldilocks, not too much, not too little, just the right amount of interest.  Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

I asked in writing before the Tribunal got started, and was assured by the Tribunal's Administrator that the Tribunal would provide full written reasons for their decision.   At the very start of the hearing, I asked again, and the Tribunal Panel themselves again reassured me that they would be providing full written reasons for their decision. In spite of these assurances, the Tribunal's decision is scant on the reasons for their decision.  My budding understanding of court proceedings, based on what I've been told and read, is that the court's decision should speak to all of the arguments presented by both sides, clearly state whether the Tribunal agrees or disagrees with those arguments, and the reasons why.  For virtually all of my reasons and arguments presented, it seems the Tribunal ignored them, like they were never made.  The Tribunal's decision mentions just one of my arguments, but even there, it offers no reasons why it was dismissed.  With incomplete reasons, it is difficult to impossible to appeal the Tribunal's decision, as there is nothing to appeal.  There is no record kept of what was said during the appeal, so we can't even go there to fill the holes in the Tribunal's records.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that I got what I was promised.  The Tribunal seems like it's trying to hide in a fog of ambiguity they have purposefully created.

To see for yourself, here is the Tribunal's decision to dismiss our appeal before it gets started.

So you can see for yourself what the Tribunal is referring to, here are my arguments for allowing our appeal to go forward:

Appellant's Answer to Tribunal's Allegation and Threat to Dismiss our Appeal 
10 pages, 171 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file

Appellant's Submission Brief (case law, statutes, regulations, documents, and 375 signatures on Petitions requesting the Tribunal to allow appeal to proceed to full hearing), 27.35 MB, 1,085 pages, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file.  (It a BIG file, so it takes a few minutes to download.  Be patient)

Here is CFO's submission to Tribunal in response to my Answer

Unlike our answer, CFO presented no facts, no legal references, no case law that supports their position.  All CFO did was issue 5 pages of rhetoric.

It appears that CFO's rhetoric is pretty powerful stuff, as it trumps a number of Supreme Court of Canada cases that supported our position.

I understand that I can ask the Tribunal for re-consideration of their decision.  My estimate of success is I'd have better luck buying a 6-4-9 ticket.

I can also ask the Minister of Agriculture to intercede.  Assessment of success?  I have no idea.  What are your thoughts?

If neither of these work, I can ask the ON Superior Court for a Judicial Review.  However, that puts me at risk for having costs awarded against me, perhaps risking thousands of dollars to pay for CFO's lawyers if I lose. Pretty risky step.

What do you think Small Flockers should do?

CFO's Gorilla Dust

On the last available day, we finally have CFO’s reply to our appeal and the Tribunal’s threat to dismiss our appeal.

Our last ditch effort to save our appeal from CFO's fatal propaganda is described in Blog posting It Is Done

I was always told to first find the good in all things before criticizing, so that is where I will start.  CFO, to the best of my abilities to detect, has no spelling mistakes, and their sentence structure shows intelligence, education, and strong  rhetorical arguments.  It appears that CFO's lawyer did the best he could with the weak hand that he was given.  He was unable to present any evidence or case law in support of CFO's position; perhaps because there aren't any available.

On page 7 of the Tribunal's May 21, 2014 decision, the Tribunal said:

"Mr. Black's Amended Notice of Appeal is restricted to challenging CFO Regulation No. 2425-2013 and the 300 bird chicken exemption policy;"

Why then, is CFO repeatedly hammering away about Small Flockers' complaints against the Small Flock Regulation?  In our Revised Notice of Appeal, we complain that this Small Flock Regulation (the "Impugned Regulation") is:

• Unconstitutional;
• Ultra Vires the powers and authority delegated to CFO;
• Violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
• Excessive, arbitrary, unjustifiable, draconian, and an abuse of powers; far beyond what is necessary and justifiable to achieve the stated Objectives of the Chicken Supply Management System;
• Not applicable to Northern Ontario, and other under-serviced or remote areas of Ontario.

If the Revised Notice of Appeal is to be limited to the impugned Small Flock Regulation, why does CFO complain that "...the small flock regulation continues to serve as the toe-hold for the advancement of Mr. Black's broader concerns and agenda."

In my Revised Notice of Appeal, I gave evidence on why my appeal of the Small Flock Regulation should be allowed.  CFO takes exception to me being allowed to present evidence against the Small Flock Regulation.

Apparently CFO feels I am only allowed to appeal if I don't present any evidence to support my case.  That would certainly be an interesting appeal process.

In the Tribunal's July 31st, 2014 decision, the Tribunal  invited me to convince them that they have the powers and jurisdiction for the relief I sought in my Revised Notice of Appeal:

"In addition, the Tribunal gives Mr. Black the opportunity to persuade it that it has the jurisdiction to grant the relief set out in section 11 (p. 96-97) of the RNOA."

In my arguments to support our appeal and prevent the dismissal without a hearing, I gave it my best shot to convince the Tribunal in 10 pages or less.  I also said that if I was not fully successful in my arguments to convince the Tribunal, I offered to withdraw all contentious points, defaulting to exactly what the Tribunal has already agreed to (ie. the Small Flock regulation, and the 300 bird limit).

Still, CFO is not satisfied.  CFO spends 5 pages complaining that I improperly persist in my claims, even though the Tribunal gave me the opportunity to make final convincing arguments on those points.

I found numerous previous cases decided by Ontario Superior Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada that seemed exactly on point in support of my Notice of Appeal.  I understand that the typical arguments against previous case law are:

• Try showing that I've misinterpreted what my case law is saying, or how it should be applied;
• Try finding other case law that supersedes or overrules my case law;

CFO does none of this.  CFO presents mere rhetoric against the claims made, but makes no attempt to diminish the legal precedents I presented.  Perhaps that's because the Supreme Court of Canada cases are the law of the land, and cannot be attacked in any reasonable way.

Perhaps CFO has no case, and they know it.  Perhaps CFO is like a scared gorilla, who throws dust in the air as a smoke screen so as to distract attention, blind the opponent, or cover their retreat without being seen.  The best that CFO can come up with is gorilla dust.

We will soon see how far the Tribunal is willing to stretch out their neck in favor of CFO's position.

It is Done

It is done.  The Tribunal's has accused our chicken appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and done in bad faith.

The answer to those allegations was made late last night, so it's delivery is effective as of today 2014/08/14, one day before the Tribunal's deadline.

Appellant's Answer to Tribunal's Allegation and Threat to Dismiss our Appeal 
10 pages, 171 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file

Appellant's Submission Brief (case law, statutes, regulations, documents, and 375 signatures on Petitions requesting the Tribunal to allow appeal to proceed to full hearing), 27.35 MB, 1,085 pages, Adobe Acrobat X pdf file.  (It a BIG file, so it takes a few minutes to download.  Be patient)

Now the other parties have 10 days to respond with their view of the world.  That window closes on Sunday Aug. 24th, so they will have till Monday Aug. 25th at 4:00 PM to submit their response.  After that, the Tribunal will decide, and issue its written decision in 30 days or less.

Both the Federal and Provincial governments have a right to input their position to the Tribunal.  Will they sit on the sidelines in full neutrality, choosing to let David and Goliath battle to the death?  Or, will these powerful past allies of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") again pick up the proxy sword and do as CFO's lobbyists instruct the government to do, come to the aid of CFO, the Frankenstein creation and favorite son of the governments?  A son only its Mother could love.

Sometimes strange, unexpected things happen.  Perhaps this is one of those cases.

I was asked a question by someone who has been in a ringside seat for these Chicken Wars.  Was I a lawyer in my former life?

I replied "No".  I explained that I have a "dangerous" ability to learn quickly, and to finish what I started.

One of the mistakes I made was in ever going down this road in the first place.  What was I thinking!  My family, friends, & neighbours regularly shake their heads in disbelief at what I have been going through for the last 3 years to bring these issues to the forefront, seeking government's attention and change for the better.

However, I think it unreasonable to expect this level of dedication that has been demanded of me so as to improve this critical food system for Canadians.  No wonder the average citizen never considers attempting what I have attempted.  Clearly this system, and all other governmental systems need to be much more responsive to the needs of the people.

As President Kennedy said:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."


(JFK's "Address on the First Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress," White House reception for diplomatic corp of the Latin American republics, March 13, 1962. Public Papers of the Presidents – John F. Kennedy (1962), p. 223)

Perhaps we need to solve the government's problem with accountability & responsiveness before we can use that more responsive government to solve the citizen's growing list of other issues.

Perhaps I erred by trying to fix the wrong problem.

Ready For Submission

The response to the Tribunal's Notice of Intent to Dismiss Appeal is now ready for submission to the Tribunal (I think...I hope).

Response To Notice to Dismiss Appeal, Version #10   10 pages, 174.9 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf

Appellant's Submission Brief
 (case law, statutes, regulations, Rules, Petitions, etc.), 1081 pages, 23.83 MB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf

The deadline is Friday at 4:00 PM, so we still have 3 days left to ruminate or improve before the deadline.

Remember:  Our goal is freedom for Small Flockers, and affordable chicken for Canadians.  Sometimes it's hard to remember that after going through all these legal acrobatics.

Let me know what you think.

I get Knocked Down, but I get up Again...

*****
2014/08/11 8:13 PM addendum

This posting's Rev.  5 draft version is obsolete, replaced by Rev. 8 version available here:

Response Draft #8 to Notice to Dismiss Appeal

*****
Original Posting

I get Knocked Down, but I get up Again.  You're never gonna keep me down.  The new theme song for Small Flockers, and our ongoing battle with Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO").



The Tribunal has decided, or CFO convinced them, that my appeal of the small flock regulation is not suitable.  They allege that:

• I have failed to file an appeal that meets their minimum standards
• My appeal is frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith. 
• They have no powers or jurisdiction to hear any of my complaints.

The Tribunal said they would give me one last chance, an opportunity to submit up to 10 pages to convince them that none of these allegations are true.  To make all of this "legal", they sent me a Notice Of Intention To Refuse To Hear Appeal.

Now, I have 15 days to respond before they pull the trigger and my appeal is summarily executed.

I have drafted a Small Flocker response, Rev. 5.  I am not totally happy with what it says right now, so further improvements are needed.  I have used up every available square millimeter of space, so if something is missing, something else will have to be deleted.

I hope you will give it a read, and offer some of your life experience as suggestions to improve.

The deadline for filing an answer is 4:00 PM on Friday Aug. 15, 2014.  Your suggestions need to be submitted by the 14th so I have time to review them, and get them entered into the draft.

Even though the blindfold is in place, our hands are tied behind our back, and we are up against a bullet riddled wall, it doesn't necessarily mean it's time to panic.

Rev. Hugh MacDonald (a friend of mine and former Pastor) told me that back in the 1980's, he was involved in a protest against indiscriminant pesticide spraying to control the spruce budworm in Nova Scotia.  An informal group of citizens tried complaining to the government, but the government wouldn't listen, so they took the government to court.  The legal challenge was lead (or assisted) by Elizabeth May, law student and daughter of one of the citizen leaders.  That group of citizens lost in Court, but that loss, and the publicity gained, helped them win in the court of public opinion.  Without the loss of the court battle, and its focusing of public attention, they might never have won the war against indiscriminate pesticide spraying.

Perhaps that battle helped focus the life of Elizabeth May, who is now the Party Leader of the Green Party of Canada, and a Member of Parliament.  

I wonder if Small Flockers are destined to take the same (or a similar) path through history?

The Empire Strikes Back

The revised Notice of Appeal was published on the 17th of July, 2014 (see Blog posting Appeal #2 Submitted).  The Empire struck back on the 21st, just 4 days later.

Mr. D. Vader, consulting attorney for Chicken Farmers of Ontario

The last time Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") complained about my appeal, they were successful in limiting my appeal to just CFO's Small Flock Regulation.

The Empire (a.k.a  #ChickenMafia) didn't want to discuss the rights and freedoms of small flockers, the affordability of chicken, the superbugs and other noxious substances on the chicken produced by the #ChickenMafia, nor anything else.

In CFO's letter to the Tribunal, Darth Vader Geoffrey Spur complained about the revised appeal, and about the evidence presented in support of raising the small flock exemption from 300 to 2,000 birds.

It isn't clear to me what CFO thinks would be a reasonable and acceptable appeal.  CFO seems to want the appeal to be limited to "Please raise the limit from 300 to 2,000", with no reasons in support of this request  to be offered.

While CFO took 4 days to respond, I burned the midnight oil and got a Small Flocker response to CFO's complaint out the next day.

It will be interesting to see the Tribunal's response to these renewed complaints by CFO.

I have two burning questions:

1. When, if ever, do we get to the hearing of the appeal?
    
2. Luke Skywalker was shocked when he found out the truth about Darth Vader, so should I start to worry too about "Who's your Daddy?"

Petition Partners

The appeal paperwork has been filed just before the deadline.  Next, we need Petition Partners to help our cause.

I have drafted up a petition to be delivered to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal, encouraging them to study the available evidence concerning the Small Flock Regulation of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), then have the courage to do what is in the best interest of Ontario.

Petition for Small Flockers Appeal, Rev. 1   

WE the undersigned petition the Tribunal as follows:

Carefully consider all applicable evidence, then improve CFO’s Small Flock Regulation so that:

1) CFO must first serve the greater good of the public, before serving the special interest goals of CFO and its members;

2) Small Flocker’s rights and freedoms are protected;

3) Adequate quota exemption is provided to small flock chicken farmers so they can be a viable alternative to the quota-based mega chicken factory system operated under CFO.

Also, the Tribunal is petitioned to recommend other improvements to Ontario’s Chicken Supply Management System.

That won't be easy for the Tribunal Panel to do.

They need encouragement to make a stand for the greater good, rather than the self-serving prior behaviours of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") and the Chicken Mafia.

They need to be reminded that these issues are important to most people in Ontario, not just a lone nut with a Blog.

I had the bravery and empathy to start this issue off.  If I remain a "lone nut", then this issue will die with me, no matter how dedicated I may be.

Followers have an even more important role.  A follower changes a "lone nut" into a "Leader".  Here is a short 3 minute video that explains the concept of Leaders and Followers.

Dare to follow.

What I need are Followers, many Followers, who will download this Petition, print it off, sign it themselves, for it is extremely difficult for the first person to sign a blank Petition, then take it with them everywhere they go.  Explainto your family, friends, neighbours why you decided to be a Follower, and encourage them to follow too.

When you have a full Petition, mail it, scan and email it, or Fax it to me.  I will include it in the package that I send to the Tribunal.  Ten thousand signatures would be nice.  If every Follower did one Petition each, with 39 signatures per Petition, we need 256 Followers.

Will you be one of my Followers?  I need your help.

Appeal #2, Version 15

2014/07/17  

This posting superseded  by the filing of the final version of the appeal.  See Appeal #2 Submitted

* * * * * *

We have just 7 days remaining before the filing deadline for our revised appeal.

Here is Version #15 of our revised Appeal.

Thank-you for your comments and suggestions on the first draft published previously (see Blog posting CFO Chicken Appeal #2 ).

If you have any additional suggestions, please get them to me ASAP, as the final version must be printed and sent soon.

Appeal #2, Version 15      76 pages, 685 kB, Adobe Acrobat X pdf

Decision Time

The Tribunal has made its decision on our Appeal.  Now it is time for Small Flockers and their friends to make our decision.

The Tribunal's decision on CFO's Motion to Dismiss our appeal is available here: Tribunal's Decision.

Small Flockers need to decide if we abandon our fight for freedom and affordable food, or continue our fight for truth, justice, and pragmatic solutions.

I just sent an email to all members of Small Flockers, and a few key agriculture media contacts.  That emailed letter is reproduced here.

As requested in this letter, if you have any feedback, I'd like to receive it too. Call, email, or post your comments below, whether pro or con.

* * *
Begin Email Letter

To:    Members of Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
c.c.   Agriculture Media

As a member, supporter, or follower of Small Flocker Poultry Farmers of Canada, you need to know that we are at an important decision point for Small Flockers, and I seek your advice.

Attached, you will find the Tribunal's decision on my appeal, where I was acting as proxy for all other Small Flockers in Ontario, and the rest of Canada.

The Appeals Tribunal has rejected all of our issues raised, except for one:  the 300 birds/yr grow limit imposed on Small Flockers by CFO (Chicken Farmers of Ontario), and our request to have the limit raised to 2,000 birds per year, in line with most other Provinces.

The Tribunal has invited me to file an amended Notice of Appeal on this one issue.  I need to decide if I should give up now, or file the abridged appeal.

In my mind, the #1 issue was, and remains, whether CFO  is a power unto themselves.  CFO seems to feel they can do as they please with the government powers delegated & vested in them, to feather their own nest at the expense of everybody else in Ontario.  If we solve this one issue about CFO's role, most or all other issues in chicken supply management will automatically (more or less) solve themselves.  This is why safe, affordable food for all Ontario families is the second most important issue that we hoped to address in this appeal.

Today, Health Canada reports that 7.6% of Canadian families can't afford the food they need to feed themselves.  In our have-not Province of Ontario, food insecurity is 11% worse than the Canadian average.  Will this be an election issue?  Is there any hope of solving or improving this issue if we abandon our appeal at this point in time?

If I file the amended appeal, the Tribunal may have to rule on that central core issue (ie. Does CFO have a duty to do what is in the best interest of the public?), but the Tribunal could also refuse again to address that important issue, deciding the 300 vs. 2,000 bird limit question based on other facts.  I believe we can show on the balance of probabilities that strengthening and expanding small flockers would be in the public's best interest, and would be more fair to small flockers.  CFO has again stated that the 300 bird limit was not set, and has no need to be set at a level that is commercially viable (ie. it is not necessary that a small flocker has a reasonable expectation of making a profit).

I expect that if I go forward, most or all of the cost, time, and effort will likely have to come from me personally.  For that reason, I seek your advice, but reserve the final decision to me alone.  In other words, I reserve the right to accept or reject the advice of the majority of Small Flock members, and each individual.  However, I would greatly appreciate receiving your advice, and more important yet, the REASONS behind your advice.

There is no guarantee that we will win or achieve anything if I do all the work of re-filing a new, revised version of an appeal, and go back to the Tribunal again.

I suggest that CFO would be very glad to sweep all of this under the carpet.  By making this appeal a tough and drawn out process, CFO likely hopes to wear us down, so that all sane people give up before getting anywhere close to the finish line.  In that way, CFO wins by default, and the status quo continues in CFO's advantage.  There is no guarantee that CFO won't file another Motion to Dismiss to my revised Notice of Appeal.

Personally, all or most of my issues have been swept aside; gone, deemed outside of the chosen jurisdiction of Tribunal by this decision.

On the other hand, it is usual for Courts and Tribunals to decide or comment on only the minimum number of issues necessary to make the decision at hand.  The Tribunal was asked to dismiss or contain the issues in the appeal.  That is the decision that they have made.

If we go forward by filing the amended Notice of Appeal, the Tribunal may have to decide on some of these other collateral issues too.  That would be the best possible outcome, where some or all of these other important issues get decided by the Tribunal as collateral benefits that come with the Tribunal's future decision about the 300 vs. 2000 bird limit.  Perhaps we can enter by the back door after having been refused entrance by the front door.

The Tribunal suggest I should ask for a Public Inquiry on all of the issues raised. What's the chances of getting the Fed or Prov. government to hold a public inquiry?  What a joke.  Snowball's chance in Hell, in my opinion.  Perhaps I am wrong on this, but I am not prepared to spend 1 second of effort on that impossible dream.

As for me personally, my barn can only grow 100 meat birds at a time.  At a max. of 6 grow sessions per year (think of the energy bill in -40 deg. C weather), I can do a max of 600 birds per year if I don't build a new barn.  If I restrict my growing to those that I can do economically, I can grow 4 sessions per year @ 100 birds per session= 400 birds per year.  There isn't much difference between 300 (current CFO limit by Ontario Regulation) vs 400 birds per year limit (the physical restraint of my barn).  I can't justify all the effort to fight this David Vs. Goliath battle for 100 more chickens per year that I would grow personally.  CFO's data says that 50% of small flockers have 60 birds or less at present.  It would appear that most Small Flockers in Ontario are similar to me at present.

There is the possibility that after 10 or 20 years with the 2,000 bird limit, more and more Small Flockers will start growing more chicken because it has become economically feasible to do so.  That is the hope, but mostly speculation whether it would actually occur.  Nobody knows for sure.

The current 300 birds/yr. limit allows one farmer to produce enough chicken to feed 5.5 families for a year.

Alternatively, there are about 100 families in my small village.  If I focus on feeding them, that is about 250 people.  Assuming 38 kg of chicken consumed per person per year, that is a total of 9,500 kg per year of chicken required.  At 2 kg per eviscerated chicken, that is 4,750 birds per year.  With a 2,000 bird limit, I would be able to feed about 42% of my remote village for their annual chicken consumption.  That would seem to be reasonable in my particular case.  Perhaps there are many Small Flockers who have a similar duty or opportunity so as to achieve safe, nutritious, locally produced chicken for their community.  Perhaps this is sufficient reason to continue the fight.

On the other hand, this revised grow limit [of] 2,000 birds per year might allow for the creation of mid-sized regional chicken producers, possibly adding a middle tier into the current 2 tier system (ie. currently just quota farmers and small flock farmers).

I'd be doing all the work for a very few individuals who would benefit from being able to become a regional chicken producer.  In the future, will these regional producers align themselves with the small flockers and the consumers, or will they choose to align themselves with the big boys (ie. the millionaire quota chicken farmers and producers) so that they get free crumbs from the master's table?  I am not highly motivated to help splinter and add to the opposition forces (ie. possibly similar to chopping a star fish in half so as to get rid of them, but you end up with twice as many star fishes, as each piece re-grows into a whole star fish). On the positive side, perhaps this new middle tier of chicken producers will help apprentice & ease in new chicken farmers to our industry, rather than the current trans-Atlantic jump that is required from small flock (easy for everybody to do) to full minimum quota size (ie. a multi-million dollar operation).  Therefore a 3-tier system might be good for Ontario in the long run.

If I stop now, I will have failed in my purpose, as Jim Rohnman said yesterday in his Blog   http://agri007.blogspot.ca/2014/05/black-loses-appeal.html 

Perhaps I have poisoned the well, and it is better if I toss the ball into the air, yell "Free Throw", and hope somebody else jumps up, grabs the ball, and runs with it.

I don't like the thought of being a quitter, nor of being a failure, nor admitting to have wasted the huge effort I expended over the last 3 years on these issues.  However, it would be an even greater disaster to ignore this setback, then blunder on to an even greater waste of time and effort, or the further polarization and entrenchment between the CFO and Small Flocker factions.

If I go forward, I have little to no personal skin in the game.  It will be mainly "for the good of all Ontario" and the new regional chicken producers who would gain from my efforts if I choose to proceed.  Perhaps in the long term there might be some advantages to what we have done so far; it's hard to know.

It's a tough decision.  That's why I need your advice.  Please call or email me with your thoughts; pro or con.


Yours truly,

Glenn

--
Glenn Black
President
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada
c/o 576 Firehall Rd. P.O. Box 101
Providence Bay ON   P0P 1T0
Phone (705)-377-4039
cdn.small.flockers@gmail.com
Blog: http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/

Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to communicate, discuss, and advocate for the civil rights and important role that small flock poultry farmers can play (and should play) in Canadian Society.

* * *
End Email Letter


If you have any feedback, I'd like to receive it too. Call, email, or post your comments below, whether pro or con.

Tribunal Hearing: CFO's Motion To Dismiss my Appeal

CFO's Motion to Dismiss hearing has been completed.  The Tribunal will take the next 30 days to decide whether our appeal will be allowed to proceed, or killed so as to maintain the chicken supply management status quo.

As Blogged previously (see SFPFC's Ball is in Tribunal's Court), I filed an appeal with the Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal of the actions, inactions, and decisions of Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") and Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission ("OFPMC").

Shortly after receiving my Notice of Appeal, CFO notified the Tribunalthat they didn't want to discuss these issues raised, and would be filing a Motion to Dismiss my appeal.  The appeal was held in Guelph ON on May 14, 2014, from 9:30 AM to about 4:00 PM.

There were 3 lawyers who were assigned to the Tribunal.  These were lawyers who work in private practice, and have been appointed to hear the cases assigned to them for the Appeals Tribunal.  There were 2 lawyers (articling law students?) from London ON, a staff member from CFO, 2 Tribunal staff members, a staff member from OFPMC, and Jim Rohman, a Blogger and agriculturee reporter who was kind enough to come from Kitchener ON to cover this trial, then Blog on his perceptions (see link above).

The Tribunal Hearing was all very professional, cordial, and respectful.  I felt that our arguments were listened to by all members on the Tribunal Panel.

CFO went first, as it was their Motion To Dismiss.  The lawyer for CFO, Mr. Spurr, took about 1.5 hrs to present his arguments in favor of CFO's motion.

Since OFPMC was so closely aligned with CFO, Ms Michelle Ireland, lawyer for OFPMC, was allowed to go next.  She confirmed that OFPMC was in full agreement with everything that CFO said.

Finally it was my turn. The Tribunal offered to do an early lunch, and I start after lunch, or I start before lunch, and resume to finish after lunch. Calculating the importance of getting immediacy to respond to CFO's case before lunch could solidify these opposing views without the balance provided by my alternative views, I decided it best to do my prepared presentation before lunch, then argue against what CFO had presented.  I accepted the Tribunal's offer to get started on my arguments immediately, then call lunch, and finish my presentation after lunch. 

My viva voce [Latin for "live voice"] arguments are available as Appellant's Viva Voce Arguments.  The case law and other documents referred to in the foot notes are indexed and available in the Submissions Brief (see below) using the Footnote # sequence.

 I was required to submit copies of all the case law and other documents to which i referred and relied upon during my viva voce arguments that I presented at the Tribunal Hearing.  A copy of all these documents has been submitted to the Tribunal as the Appellant's Viva Voce Arguments Submissions Brief (Version A01) which you can download and review (Caution:  it's a 29.16 MByte Adobe Acrobat pdf, with 1,623 pages, so dialup Internet users will be a lifetime getting it downloaded).  In Adobe Reader, bookmarks are activated by clicking on a blue ribbon symbol near the top of the left margin of the Reader window.  The references are bookmarked in this file using the format:   XX_TitleDescription where XX is the Footnote # in the Appellant's Viva Voce Arguments, and TitleDescription is a short description of the document starting at that bookmark.

In this preliminary version of the submission's brief, I have been unable to obtain the following cases and reference documents:

• Footnote #4:   United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Responses to the Supplementary Questions to Canada’s Third Report on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1998, UN Doc HR/CESCR/NONE/98/8       I have a request in to Heritage Canada to supply me this document.
• Footnote #19:   Lorne Sossin, Boundaries of Judicial Review: The Law of Justiciability in Canada, 2nd ed., ISBN: 978-0-7798-4933-8 (Toronto:Thomson Reuters, 2012) at pg. 244.   I have an inter-library loan request for a copy of page 244 of this textbook submitted to Osgoode Law Library at York University.  In the interim, I have included a Book Review on the text, and the Table of Contents showing the item referenced on pg. 244.

Now we wait for the Tribunal's decision.

Response to CFO's Motion to Dismiss

CFO filed a Motion to Dismiss our appeaL (see BlogPosting CFO's Motion to Dismiss Small Flocker's Appeal ), and we have now filed a response.  Our hearing on May 14th in Guelph will discuss this Motion and decide if our appeal will live another day, or die stillborn.

You can find our appeal in our Blog Posting  Tribunal Time  This is a guaranteed solution for all with insomnia or Sleep Apnea, or your money cheerfully refunded.

Here are the documents so you can read them, even before the CFO legal sharks get their fingers on them:

• Notice of Constitutional Question which was filed with the Deputy Attorney Generals for Canada and Ontario, alerting them of the constitutional questions that will be argued in the hearing.
• Our Response to Motion to Dismiss where we give the reasons to keep our appeal alive.  CFO threw every possible reason at us to shut us down, except they left out the alleged fact that my Mother wears army boot.  Perhaps I will be on the receiving end of that one during the oral arguments on May 14th.
• Our Submissions Brief is where copies of the applicable statutes, regulations, and case law is presented to all parties, so everybody concerned has the same starting point in the hearing.
• OFPMC's Response to Motion to Dismiss is just 2 pages long, agreeing with most of what CFO stated, offering a few clarifications.  It appears that CFO and OFPMC have a gentlemen's agreement that CFO will take the lead and do all the heavy lifting, and OFPMC stays out of the fray.  If that is true, that is consistent with OFPMC's prior actions:  let CFO do as it pleases.  No wonder Ontario is in the mess that we are today.
• Courier Receipts   You can watch and trace the progress of these critical courier pouches as they wind their way around the Great Lakes to arrive at their destination.  I received a major shock on pricing.  Apparently, Purolator Courier has recently designated us as a "remote region", understandable with how they are forced to use a dog sled in winter and ox cart in summer for their courier pickups.  (whoop! I forgot, we have an international audience who may not understand I was being sarcastic).  The standard envelope Puroletter is $49.69 multiplied by 2 packets, which has destroyed our budget.  We are out of money again, and I had to cash in a bunch of pop, beer, and wine bottle to afford the printing and courier bill.
• Petition Form   This is a handy form to collect signatures from your family, friends, neighbours, farm animal hoof prints, whatever, to support our cause at the Tribunal.  If you read the Response noted above, you will see that I included 7 letters/emails that support our cause.  We will have to get special permission from the Tribunal to enter on the record those that we receive between now and May 14th.  It's the best that we can do, so it will have to do.

While we wait for May 14th to arrive, we have much work to do, as follows:

1. Donations   Guess what, not only are we out of money, we are overdrawn by more than $50.00 from my personal piggy bank.
   
   I will have to drive 611 km x2 (ie. both ways)= 1,212 km. round trip, so I need gas money.  So that I'm not a bleary eyed Zombie at the hearing after getting up at 1:00 AM and driving for 6 hours, I need to come down the day before and stay overnight.  If none of you offer your tent in your backyard for a needy chicken farmer coming to Guelph, I will need to get a hotel room.
   
   Now's your chance to feel good, and help a good cause.  If you wish, I will post your name and amount of donation so all the world will know about your kind and cunning investment, or you can remain anonymous; your choice.
2. Petition Signatures   We need signatures on our petition.  Download (see above), print, and post the petition everywhere.  Take it to work, go door to door.  When filled, scan it and email it to me at cdn.small.flockers@gmail.com  I will print it off and bring them to the hearing on May 14th.
   
   Better yet, you can come running into the hearing room, out of breath, yelling,
   
   "Wait!   Wait!  I have a signed petition supporting our cause!
   I will have to disavow any knowledge of you and your dramatic yet silly stunt, but go for it if you dare.  Just leave peacefully once they handcuff you.

Thank-you for patiently checking back many times to see if I had posted something more.  I apologize for your frustration when another day went by without your Small Flocker fix.  Addiction is everywhere!  Unfortunately, I have been so busy researching and writing the response to CFO's zany motion, there was no time left to do postings.

CFO's Motion to Dismiss Small Flocker's Appeal

Small Flockers want the abuse and oppression against us to stop.  CFO thinks everything is perfect just the way it is.  That's why CFO is fighting to stop our appeal to Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture Tribunal.

Here is a copy of CFO's Motion to Dismiss, attempting to blow our appeal out of the water, preventing the public hearing of these important issues.

Guess why CFO wants to avoid the OMAF Tribunal, and keep everything Top Secret?

Is CFO embarrassed by their actions and inactions against Small Flockers?

To survive CFO's attack through this Motion to Dismiss, I will need lots of help.

• Send me an email of support, requesting that the Tribunal allow the appeal to happen.  Be sure to include your name, City, and Province of residence.
  
• We will need donations to pay for the cost of printing and couriering our answer to CFO's Motion

• We need letters of support from the general public, farmers, and all professionals to tell the Tribunal why the issues raised by Small Flockers are important to you and the rest of Canada, and that justice can only be done by hearing of Small Flocker's appeal by the Tribunal.

The ball is in your court.

I will proceed ahead to the Motion Hearing, even if I am the only one there on our side.

Whether this plea for relief of the injustice and oppression, and violation of Small Flockers rights goes any further after that, will in part depend on what you and all others do in the next few weeks to help our cause.

Now is the time to act!

Tribunal Time

It's off to the Tribunal we go!

Yesterday, I received the Tribunal's acknowledgement of receipt of our Notice of Appeal from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Appeal Tribunal. I agreed to all of their proposed dates, but somehow, the Tribunal scheduled us to different dates.  The Motion Hearing is scheduled at Tribunal's offices at 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario Canada (45 minutes from Toronto ON Canada), beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday May 14, 2014.

This motion is likely a preliminary ploy by Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") to stop the appeal before it gets started.

As CFO sees it, I have no rights whatsoever, and they are the mighty and powerful CFO, and don't appreciate me questioning their actions and authority.

If you don't mark this date on your calendar and show up at the appointed time, I will likely be there all by myself, staring into the hungry, snarling, foaming mouths of CFO's lawyers; from 1 to 6 Toronto lawyers who will attempt to rip me apart and feed me to their young; all while being paid $500 per hour for each of these legal wolf-mercenaries.

Bring popcorn and your smart phone for live video opportunities.  This will likely be interesting.

This hearing, and if we ever get to the Tribunal, could cost up to $3,000 per hour that CFO has to pay their lawyers.  Of course, CFO will fund the protection of their monopoly by raising CFO chicken levies that are charged to quota-based chicken farmers.  Ontario's factory chicken farmers who pay those levies will, in turn, be reimbursed by raising the farm gate chicken prices that the farmers enjoy.  Chicken processors will be forced to pay these higher farm gate chicken prices, so the retail price of chicken will eventually be raised accordingly.

So again, the consumer gets shafted by trying to seek an end to the previous and ongoing shafting of consumers.

My apologies to all Canadians for increasing your pain through higher chicken prices in the short term.  Hopefully, there is a rainbow and pot of gold that will eventually be found through this appeal process.

What will we be discussing at this motion hearing?  CFO likely feels I have no right to appeal, the Tribunal has no authority to hear my complaints, and I have been scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, trivial, my appeal has no merit, it's an abuse of the judicial process, moot, bad faith, have an improper purpose, or discloses no reasonable cause of action, and therefore I lose any right to appeal.

As to the Tribunal appeal itself, there is a short and long version available.  Take your pick:

The Long Version:  The Gory Details of my Appeal

Notice of Appeal   272 pages, Adobe Acrobat pdf, 5.63 MB

The Short Version:   7 Questions

Suggested Questions for the OMAF Tribunal to Answer

Glenn Black
vs.
Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”) &
Ontario’s Farm Products Marketing Commission (“OFPMC”)

1. Currently, small flock (ie. non-quota) chicken farmers are subject to government authority and powers that have been delegated to, or vested in Chicken Farmers of Ontario (“CFO”). Since these delegated and vested powers imposed on Small Flockers originated from the governments of a free and democratic country, does the Appellant and other Small Flockers have the legal right to membership in CFO, to attend CFO meetings, to receive CFO information, to run for a CFO elected office, and vote in CFO elections so as to have democratic representation at the CFO Board?


2. If the answer to Q #1 is no, then should Small Flockers be exempt from the By-laws, rules, policies, procedures, powers, authority, rulings, invasion of privacy, and threat of enforcement currently planned and practiced by CFO?


3. Are there other responsibilities, duties, and constraints owed by the Defendants (ie. both CFO and OFPMC) for the benefit of the Appellant or others, that irrevocably flow with the government powers that are delegated and vested in the Defendants, above and beyond those expressly enumerated in the Farm Products Marketing Act and Regulations?


4. Under Section 1.01 of the Federal-Provincial Agreement-Chicken 2001, all members of the chicken Supply Management system agreed “to work in the balanced interest of producers, industry stakeholders and consumers”. Have the Defendants breached these duties under this agreement? If yes, does the Appellant, Small Flockers, the consumer, and/or the general public have vested third party rights, either under this agreement or otherwise, that they can use to seek legal redress from the Defendants?


5. Do the Defendants have a duty to be open, transparent, accountable, prudent, and reasonable; and to consider, accommodate, and be responsive to the rights, needs, expectations, complaints, and suggestions from:   (a) the Defendant’s respective stakeholders?   (b) The Appellant?   (c) Small Flockers?   (d) the consumer? and (e) the general public?


6. Is there sufficient objective, unbiased evidence to conclude that the Defendants have fully, faithfully, consistently, effectively, and efficiently:   (a) developed plans;   (b) avoided risks;   (c) implemented their express and implied duties in a timely and good faith manner for the greater good of the consumer, the general public and the Defendant’s respective stakeholders;   (d) periodically assessed their own performance, promptly took corrective action as needed, and continuously improved their performance?


7. If the answer to Q #6 is no, what duties do the Defendants have to assess their past performance, identify the cause of their inadequate past performance, determine the optimum solutions, take immediate corrective actions, verify and validate that their remedial actions are fully implemented and effective, and ensure their prior poor conduct (as well as all similar potentials) are avoided forevermore?

SFPFC's Ball is in Tribunal's Court

The dirty deed is done!  After almost a year in preparing our case, the Notice of Appeal has been filed with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Tribunal.

I previously posted about our draft Notice of Appeal (see SFPFC's Appeal at the OMAF Tribunal ), and requested suggestions to further improve it.

As usual, sober second thought, eagle eyes and dedication spotted a few mistakes in the draft versions, and raised some additional ideas for putting a few more nails into CFO's coffin.  This process added 14 additional pages to our docket for submission.  I'm sure we could have continued that improvement process for 5 to 7 more rounds, but our time was limited to get in under the 1 year deadline.

Final Version:  SFPFC's Notice of Appeal to OMAF Tribunal, 272 pages, 4.73 MB

The Tribunal is created and controlled under Section 16 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.  The Tribunal thereby created is authorized and has all the necessary powers under Ontario's Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Here is the email transmitting and submitting our Notice of Appeal

As stated in the email, I have been informed that there are a number of other interested parties who likely will want to be added as parties to this appeal, intervenors, or attend the hearing, so I have requested that the hearings be held in or near Guelph ON with a hearing room suitable for 200 people.

I assume that CFO will create a huge financial war chest to fund their attack.  According to CFO's 2013 financial statements on page 28, CFO has  $8.8 Million is assets, and a net worth of $6.73 million.  By borrowing from banks or passing an emergency levy to all #ChickenMafia members and friends, they can get a lot more money to fight for a very long time, using the most expensive mercenaries money can buy.

SFPFC has its legal defense fund too.  We have been selling memberships, cutting expenses to the bone to save our pennies, cashing in aluminum cans and glass bottles, etc..  We are proud to announce that we have amassed a grand total of $26.00 ready to apply to financing this important issue.  As you can see, this is truly a David vs. Goliath battle.  Additional donations to SFPFC's legal defense fund can be made if you are so inclined.

If we can achieve more than $100.00 it might be worth opening a SFPFC bank account, rather than using the recycled coffee can sitting on the kitchen counter. 

Typically, these David vs. Goliath legal battles require an almost endless series of roadblocks that will be erected by Goliath (ie. CFO and the #ChickenMafia), and we will be required to provide strict proof and justification of every single point whined about.

CFO has already stated that they plan to contest our right to request a Tribunal hearing, as they see us as frivolous, vexatious, acting in bad faith, raising trivial matters of no importance, and that we have no right or legally justified interest in the matters complained about.  They also mentioned something about my Mom wearing army boot.

If CFO can prove any of those allegations against SFPFC, then the hearing will be over before it starts.

It may go as far as CFO denying that Planet Earth exists, as you can't have a Tribunal hearing if Planet Earth cannot be proven to exist.  Similarly, they may try to deny the existence of such things as chickens, me as a person, SFPFC, and all similar arguments that could possible delay or deny existence or responsibility for their actions.

That system of delay tactics may take a while to get through, including a multitude of preliminary motions, arguments against disclosing documents to us, and many other legal maneuvers; all before we can get to the hearing proper.

While it may seem endless at the time, the delaying tactics by CFO and the #ChickenMafia will eventually come to an end.

While all of the above is likely their plan, we may be pleasantly surprised by their willingness to get right to the meat of the matters.  We'll have to wait and see.

Hopefully, the Tribunal is well aware of their tricks, and won't tolerate them for long.

As soon as I know the date for the hearing, I'll let you know.

In the interim, please pass the word to everyone who might be interested.  Share with them your reasons for being interested.  Help them to understand what is at stake, and what the benefits might be from a positive ruling at this appeal.  We seek justice for small flockers, and to make a better world for all residents of Ontario.

Plan on coming to the hearing.  Bring your popcorn.  It should be an interesting show.

SFPFC's Appeal at the OMAF Tribunal

Our application for appeal at the OMAF Tribunal is finally ready.  Give it a read

Draft #1 of SFPFC's Notice of Appeal to OMAF Tribunal, 272 pages, 4.73 MB

Obsolete:  Draft #0 (original) of SFPFC's Statement of Claim for Appeal to OMAF Tribunal,
                 258 pages, 4.31 MB

If you're not sure what this is all about, read the history here:

March 26, 2013  CFO Chickens Out, Denies Hearing

 June 6, 2013  Off to the Tribunal we Go!

June 10, 2013  Getting Ready: OMAF Tribunal Appeal

Dec. 11, 2013   Is it Tribunal Time?

I'd appreciate brave people stepping forward and giving it a read.  Any errors, suggestions, advice, or other assistance you can offer would be most appreciated.

Please keep us in mind for any donation towards our Legal Defense Fund would be most appreciated.  We cannot yet afford the postage to mail the claim to the Tribunal.  We only have 2 weeks left before our 1 year deadline expires.

 

 

Getting Ready: OMAF Tribunal Appeal

Now that Ontario's FPMC (Farm Products Marketing Commission) has refused to intercede on the behalf of Small Flockers against Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), our next course of action is to Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Appeals Tribunal ("OMAF Tribunal").

I sent an email to the Tribunal, asking a number of questions about this important next step.

I got a very nice response from them, very helpful, they answered each question in a straight forward manner.  I was impressed.  Well done to OMAF's Gloria Marco-borys and/or her team!

If the Tribunal operates as well as this initial response, there is hope for us yet.

My questions and OMAF's answers are here.