It means the commission may be represented by a lawyer at the public hearings and question witnesses.
There was no notice on the appeals tribunal website of the three hearings it held Jan. 10 into the commission’s requests. It made its decisions Jan. 12 and the information was posted on a separate website today.
The first appeal is about the egg board’s early egg removal and early fowl removal programs.
The second is about the egg board’s telling farmers to whom they must market their eggs. It calls for a change to geographical marketing to grading stations.
The third is about the marketing board’s regular levy and its eggs-for-processing levy. The levies, which are a form of tax on farmers, are used to fund egg board operations.
The tribunal has given no public indication of when it might hold public hearings on the appeals.
The commission's intervention is curious since it has the responsibility of overseeing marketing boards and should have been on top of the issues Sweda's appeals have raised.
However, the commission also failed earlier when it received documents indicating the two dominant egg-grading companies in the province over-stated Grade A status of eggs. That benefitted farmers with better prices and the egg board with levies, but cheat consumers who were stuck with cracks and dirty eggs as later and separately confirmed when I asked for the results of Canadian Food Inspection Agency random-sample testing of egg grading.
The commission ducked responsibility by referring to a lawsuit launched by Sweda Farms against Burnbrae Farms, L.H. Gray and Son Ltd. and the egg board. More than half a decade later, that legal battle remains without any court hearings being held so far.
