Glenn Black of Providence Bay is posing a list
of seven questions in response to the Chicken Farmers of Ontario motion to try
to derail a full hearing by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Appeal
Tribunal filed by Black.
The tribunal has scheduled a hearing May 14 to
deal with the chicken board’s motion.
The questions Black is posing are:
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
FPM Act and Regulations?
4. Under Section 1.01 (d) 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/or (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?
