In today’s fast-moving fresh produce industry, access to clear, reliable information is essential. One of the ways the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) supports industry members is through Solutions, a newsletter that educates, informs, and promotes best practices across the supply chain.
For exporters, importers, growers, packers, shippers, wholesalers, retailers, carriers and transportation intermediaries, Solutions provides practical guidance to help businesses navigate challenges and trade with confidence.
Solutions: A Practical and Trusted Resource
Each Solutions article focuses on real-world issues, offering clear and relevant information that can be applied in day-to-day operations. Whether explaining DRC Trade Standards or highlighting common disputes, the content is designed to be both practical and accessible.
Supporting the Supply Chain
Solutions reflect the diverse needs of the fresh produce industry, delivering insights that help stakeholders prevent disputes and manage contract expectations, transportation liabilities, and compliance. With actionable tips, articles support better decision-making, reduced risk, and stronger trading relationships.
Reinforcing the Four Pillars of Trade
A key focus of Solutions is strengthening the understanding of the DRC’s four pillars of trade standards:
Trading Standards
Transportation Standards
Good Arrival Guidelines
Good Inspection Guidelines
Through practical examples, members gain a clearer understanding of their roles and responsibilities. By strengthening knowledge in these areas, Solutions contributes to greater transparency and consistency in the fresh produce trade.
Learning and Prevention
Arbitration case studies provide valuable insights into how disputes arise and how they are resolved, helping members identify risks and improve their practices. At the same time, Solutions emphasizes prevention through clear trading terms, proper documentation, and effective communication—while also offering guidance when disputes do occur.
A recent arbitration case highlighted an important but often overlooked issue: ensuring that the legal entity named in a contract is the same legal entity that holds a membership with the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC).
In this case, both the claimant and the respondent were DRC members. However, the written contract identified the claimant using a company name that did not match the claimant’s legal name registered with DRC. Although the ownership and personnel behind both names were the same, the contract itself referred to a different legal entity.
The claimant argued that DRC should still have jurisdiction because the respondent “knew” they were dealing with a DRC member and that the incorrect name in the contract was merely an oversight.
The arbitrator disagreed. DRC By-laws and Dispute Resolution Rules clearly state that jurisdiction applies only to disputes between DRC members. It is the responsibility of the parties to ensure that the legal entity named in the contract is a member of the DRC. The contract also lacked a DRC arbitration clause, which could have extended jurisdiction to a non-member entity. As a result, the arbitrator found that DRC had no jurisdiction over the dispute.
While this is only a summary of the case, it underscores a critical point: DRC membership applies strictly to the legal entity that has been accepted as a member. Membership rights are not transferable, and members must keep their information current.
Key Membership Obligations
DRC By-laws require that:
Membership covers only the specific legal entity approved by DRC.
Membership rights cannot be transferred to another legal entity, even if ownership is the same.
Members must update their membership information promptly when changes occur.
Recommendations for Members
To avoid jurisdictional issues and ensure your transactions are properly covered, consider the following:
Multiple legal entities: If you own more than one company and use each for trading, ensure each entity has its own DRC membership.
Name or ownership changes: Report any legal name changes, amalgamations, or changes in ownership to DRC’s membership department.
Sister companies: Many organizations operate multiple related companies. Some may be DRC members while others are not. Transactions with non-members are not covered. Always confirm the correct legal entity.
Shared ownership does not equal shared membership: Common or similar ownership does not extend DRC membership rights across entities.
Contracts and marketing agreements: Always verify that the legal names appearing in any written agreement accurately reflect the DRC member entities involved.
This case underscores the importance of correctly identifying legal entities in contractual agreements and keeping your DRC records up to date. Taking these steps can help avoid jurisdictional issues and preserve access to the DRC dispute resolution system.
Questions?
When you have a question about a member or your own membership, do not hesitate to contact our membership department or our Help Desk.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) welcomed eleven new members in May 2026. Additionally, some existing members have changed their membership status. Scroll below for more information.
Welcome New Members
A&S DISTRIBUTION INC., ON, Canada AVO VALLEY S DE RL DE CV, Jalisco, Mexico BHARATFRUITS CANADA (A d/b/a of 15779316 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada DESANO PRODUCE LTD., ON, Canada EKRS INTERNATIONAL PRODUCE INC., BC, Canada FGF FRESH PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada HAYER BLUEBERRY FARMS LTD., BC, Canada LITTLE LEAF PA, LLC (Also d/b/a Little Leaf Farms), PA, United States MIKHWAN FOODS INC., ON, Canada VAN GRONINGEN & SONS, CA, United States VIVA HARVEST INC., QC, Canada
DRC Membership Change in Status
As of May 31st, 2026, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:
A.H. GARDEN PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada AGUACATES ACUITZIO DEL CANJE S.A. DE C.V. (También haciendo negocios como ADEAC), Michoacan, Mexico ARRCA LLC (Also d/b/a Arrca), TX, United States BACATA FOOD GROUP INC., BC, Canada DNI MOTOR FREIGHT LTD., AB, Canada DUNE NORDIQUE IMPORT INC., QC, Canada GLOBAL LIONS CONSULTING COMPANY LTD., BC, Canada GLYCAN FOOD LIMITED, BC, Canada GREAT FOODS GLOBAL LTD., MB, Canada HAO FU FARM LTD., ON, Canada HE EMPIRE INC., BC, Canada INTIFRUITS DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V. (También haciendo negocios como IntiFresh), Jalisco, Mexico JAY KISAN TRADING INC., BC, Canada OKANAGAN SUNSHINE. (A d/b/a of Okanagan Sunshine Fruit Sales), BC, Canada PAISANO PRODUCE LLC, TX, United States QUAILS’ GATE VINEYARDS ESTATE WINERY LTD., BC, Canada REDFROG ENTERPRISES LTD., BC, Canada TAYLOR FARMS RETAIL, INC., CA, United States THULASI INC., ON, Canada UNFI Canada, Inc., BC, Canada
The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for the fresh produce industry. The DRC serves as a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a member of the DRC.
In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services, and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who fail to conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.
The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation and mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.
For more information about our members and membership with the DRC, click here.
Dispute over the limitation of the claims period and the timely inspection request.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has developed a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.
The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is to administer the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.
ABSTRACT:
The arbitration decision addresses a dispute between parties from Canada. The dispute arose when the Respondent did not pay an invoice within the agreed payment terms. The Respondent contended that the Claimant’s claim was submitted outside the limitation period. Additionally, the Respondent claimed that as the receiver/buyer, they fulfilled their obligations in a timely manner after receiving the product, which they stated arrived in a deteriorated condition.
The arbitrator determined that the Respondent did not successfully prove that the Claimant’s claim was filed outside the limitation of claims period, and the Respondent failed to demonstrate that an inspection was requested and performed in a timely manner to show the product failed to meet DRC Good Arrival Guidelines.
This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.
According to the transportation entry/manifest and bill of lading dated May 15, 2019, a shipment of 600 cases of beef tomatoes (25 LB rounds) was sent from Mexico to Laredo, Texas. Invoice #19005 dated May 15, 2019, indicates that the shipment was sold by the Claimant to the Respondent. The tomatoes were to be picked up by the Respondent, and the load was bonded for transport to Canada. The invoice states that the amount owed for the tomatoes was $9,570.00 US, with billing terms of net 30 days, making the payment due on June 14, 2019.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
The Claimant asserts that the Respondent picked up the load at the Claimant’s warehouse in Laredo, Texas. The invoice does not indicate any issues with the tomatoes during the pickup. The Respondent subsequently shipped the tomatoes to Calgary, Alberta, where the truck arrived on May 19, 2019.
Statement of Defence to Statement of Claim
The Respondent purchased the tomatoes (invoice #19005) from the Claimant. The tomatoes were for “X”. The load was picked up in Laredo, TX, on 5/16/2019 and shipped to Calgary, Alberta.
The truck arrived in Calgary on 5/19/2019.
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019, at 8:48 AM, the Respondent emailed the Claimant stating, “The tomatoes aren’t holding up and are very soft. We are calling for an inspection on what we have.”
A Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspection was performed on the tomatoes at 10:30 AM on May 21, 2019, at the Respondent’s warehouse, showing:
Defect
Average
Firm Ripe
95%
(C) Soft
6%
(C) Decay
0%
(C) Discoloration
4%
(C) Soft areas
4%
(P) Scars
2%
(C) Sunken areas
2%
The following day, another inspection was conducted by the CFIA. The second report noted a slight increase in softness and outlined additional variables not mentioned in the first report; however, only 388 cartons were inspected.
The Respondent argues that the tomatoes did not meet their specifications and that the claim should be barred because it was not filed within the appropriate statute of limitations timeframe provided in the DRC rules.
Reply to Statement of Defence to Statement of Claim
The Claimant states that on 5-28-19, they responded to an e-mail from the Respondent regarding the tomatoes. The Claimant indicates that the inspection barely showed any soft tomatoes. The Claimant indicated that, based on the inspection report, they would probably not issue any credit to the Respondent. The Claimant claims they had no indication that the invoice would not be paid.
The Claimant argues that they never received any accounting of Sale, until the arbitration proceeding was filed. Further, the Respondent didn’t provide any invoices associated with the sale of reworked product. There is no documentation as to final disposition of the tomatoes. There is no documentation as to dumping claims or sales revenues.
SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
First question/issue: Is the arbitration claim barred under the DRC rules?
According to the DRC Rules:
“Article 4 Limitation of Claims.
1) Unless the parties otherwise specifically agree in writing, no Claim may be brought under these Rules by one member against another unless the Claim is notified to the DRC by filing a Notice of Dispute within nine (9) months of when the Claim arose or within nine (9) months of when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence. Failure to file the Notice of Dispute with the DRC within this time is deemed an abandonment of the Claim and shall prevent recovery against another member.”
The record is devoid of communication efforts after May 28, 2019. Neither party submitted further communication evidence.
The Respondent argues that the Statute of Limitations began running on 5-21-19, because they ordered an inspection on that date. Just because someone orders an inspection, doesn’t mean there won’t be some type of resolution on the file. There is no evidence that the invoice would not be paid. How long should a company try to collect on an invoice before they reasonably know it is not going to be paid? It is reasonable in this industry that resolution could take months.
The actual due date for the invoice would have been June 14, 2019. The statute would have started running after June 14, 2019.
The Claimant filled its complaint with the DRC on March 9, 2020, within the 9-month time period. The complaint was filed within the Statutory time limit, and the arbitration will go forward.
Second question/issue: Does the Claimant present a case against the Respondent for recoverable damages?
The complaint states that the Respondent purchased the tomatoes from the Claimant. The Respondent sent the product to Calgary, Alberta. On arrival, the Respondent’s receiving report indicated the product arrived at 7:18 AM on Sunday, May 19, 2019. The report indicated the tomatoes needed grading for soft and colour sorting. Other than that notation, there is no other evidence of a problem with the load of tomatoes. If the tomatoes were deteriorating, an inspection could have been requested on Sunday, the day of their arrival.
Two days later, the Respondent contacts the Claimant and tells them there is a problem with the tomatoes. They have an inspection done that day and another inspection the day after. The first inspection report shows 18% total defects.
In Canada, in absence of an agreement on grade, DRC uses the “Good Arrival Guidelines.”
DRC Good Arrival Guidelines
Tomatoes
15 – total allowable defects 10 – total allowable permanent defects 05 – total allowable same permanent defect 10 – total allowable same single defect 05 – total allowable decay
Three days after arrival, the tomatoes fail to meet DRC Good Arrival Guidelines, but only by 2% (permanent defects such as “scars” do not count on no grade contracts). Could this product have met DRC Good Arrival Guidelines if inspected upon arrival?
The record is devoid of further communication between the parties regarding the transaction or payment thereon.
Further, even though the Respondent claims the product was defective and didn’t meet specs, they produced no documentation regarding the disposition of the product. They claim part of the load was dumped, with no documentation to support their claim. What happened to the remaining tomatoes? There is no documentation to support their limited accounting.
Clearly, the Respondent purchased the tomatoes from the Claimant. The invoice has not been disputed. Regardless of other issues, the Respondent failed to prove its case. No evidence of transit temperatures in this FOB sale was [TD2.1] provided; an inspection 2 days after arrival is only marginally out of spec and is completely different than the QC report on arrival. And finally, as already stated, the disposition of the tomatoes is not properly documented.
Regarding “X’s” [TD3.1] involvement, there may have been a separate agreement for the purchase. However, their participation was not well explained and was not a major factor in the decision. The Respondent stated they were “told” to purchase the tomatoes.
This transaction is a buy/sell between the Claimant and the Respondent.
ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION
The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Claimant; the Respondent must pay the Claimant in the amount of $10,248.00 US ($9,570.00 US plus arbitration fee of $678.00 US).
DRC COMMENTS
There are two important issues to address in this case:
1. Importance of submitting your claim within the 9-month limitation Period
The DRC has a limitation period for claims, as outlined in Article 4 of the Dispute Resolution Rules. If you fail to submit a Notice of Dispute within 9 months from the date the dispute arose, you have failed to file a claim in a timely manner and cannot seek recovery through the court system because that claim is deemed abandoned. To avoid missing the deadline, we suggest that our members start counting the 9-month period from the invoice date, the date the product arrives at its final destination, or the date set by payment terms.
2. It is essential to request a federal inspection promptly when receiving a product in deteriorated condition.
If you have a problem with a load, notify the shipper immediately and proceed to request an inspection. According to DRC’s Trading Standards, receivers must request a federal inspection within 8 hours of a product’s arrival by land. Additionally, after receiving a written inspection report, share this information with the shipper within 24 hours.
It is important to note that an inspection conducted more than 2 days after the product’s arrival may not accurately reflect the quality or condition at the time of delivery.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) welcomed sixteen new members in April 2026. Additionally, some existing members have changed their membership status. Scroll below for more information.
Welcome New Members
14317939 CANADA INC., QC, Canada 16930361 CANADA INC., ON, Canada 2713406 ONTARIO LIMITED, ON, Canada 2783986 ALBERTA LTD., AB, Canada BECOME ORGANIC SAC (También haciendo negocios como Befair Bio), Piura, Peru CANADIAN FOOD CONSULTING AGENCY INC., ON, Canada CIC (CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL COMPANY) (A d/b/a of 2066225 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada FREYR CREEK FARM INC. (Also d/b/a Paradise Hill Farm), AB, Canada HE GLOBAL FOOD INC., ON, Canada MBA SALES LLC., WA, United States ORMA LOGISTICS CORPORATION, BC, Canada PRODUCTORA DE FRUTAS FINAS MAGDALEA SPR DE RL (También haciendo negocios como Productora de Frutas Finas Magdalena), Colima, Mexico PRO-SHIELD LOGISTICS GROUP INC., ON, Canada RIONIYO CORP., ON, Canada YRV INC., ON, Canada ZP GLOBAL COMMERCE INC. (Also d/b/a ZP Citrus), ON, Canada
DRC Membership Change in Status
As of April 30th, 2026, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:
AFRICAN FOODWAYS MARKET LTD. (Also d/b/a African Foodways Ma), MB, Canada ARONA TRADING SA., Lima, Peru BOLA DE ORO FRESH SPR DE RL DE CV (También haciendo negocios como Bola de Oro), Oaxaca, Mexico DALEY FARM FRESH PRODUCE INC. (Also d/b/a Daley’s Trucking), ON, Canada FRACTAL FLEX INC., QC, Canada FRUITFEAST PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada GRUPO ARJORAN SA DE CV, Michoacan, Mexico HIFRUIT TECHNOLOGY INC., ON, Canada IMPORTATION GLNA INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Audally), QC, Canada INTERFRESH INC., CA, United States NATTURALE Y CIA SCA (También haciendo negocios como NATTURALE Y CIA), Cundinamarca, Colombia PACIN ENTERPRISES INC., BC, Canada RACCOONADA NUTS AND DRIED FRUITS TRADING INC. (Also d/b/a Raccoonada), ON, Canada SHEYAPRINCE IMPORT & EXPORT LIMITED, ON, Canada SPRING VALLEY PRODUCE, INC. (Also d/b/a Produce Connection), AZ, United States SUNSATION FARMS INC., CA, United States TOWNSEND FRUIT FARMS INC., ON, Canada UNITED GROWERS ORGANIZATION INTL INC. (Also d/b/a UGO), ON, Canada UNITED PRODUCE LTD., ON, Canada URBAN HARVEST DISTRIBUTORS INC., ON, Canada VP FRESH PRODUCE LLC, AZ, United States
The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for the fresh produce industry. The DRC serves as a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a member of the DRC.
In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services, and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who fail to conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.
The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation and mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.
For more information about our members and membership with the DRC, click here.
The fresh produce industry operates on a truly international scale, linking growers, shippers, buyers, and sellers across multiple regions. As supply chains stretch and trading relationships expand, the need for dependable, transparent business practices becomes even more critical. The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) supports this evolving landscape by serving as a global reference point for ethical, reliable commerce in the fresh fruit and vegetable industry.
To meet the needs of a complex marketplace, the DRC, a not-for-profit, membership-based organization, provides harmonized trading practices, promotes responsible business conduct, and delivers trusted dispute prevention and resolution services. Together, these elements help companies work with predictable standards and reduce the uncertainties that can arise in perishable‑goods transactions.
Why Members Worldwide Trust the DRC
Membership in the DRC offers practical, day‑to‑day value for exporters, importers, growers, shippers, packers, brokers, wholesalers, and retailers. Joining gives you:
A Global Framework You Can Rely On Our standards remove ambiguity by offering consistent guidance for domestic and international transactions.
A Fair and Efficient Dispute Resolution System The DRC offers education and consultation, mediation, and arbitration services through a clear, impartial system, helping members resolve issues early and protect their business relationships.
Increased Credibility and Reduced Risk Working within a recognized set of rules reduces misunderstandings, delays, and financial exposure.
Stronger Relationships and Repeat Business Shared expectations build confidence—confidence leads to repeated, long‑term business.
The Four Pillars of DRC Trade Standards
Our framework is built on four core components that guide every stage of a fresh produce transaction. These standards are widely recognized and help simplify trade from origin to destination.
1. Trading Standards
These standards outline contract expectations, responsibilities, timelines, payment terms, and business integrity requirements. They ensure each party enters the transaction with a clear and consistent understanding of its obligations.
2. Transportation Standards
Because produce quality can be greatly affected by logistics, our transportation standards define best practices for loading, temperature control, carrier responsibilities, and documentation. They help prevent issues related to handling and transit conditions.
3. Good Arrival Guidelines
These guidelines describe what constitutes an acceptable arrival condition, taking into account commodity type, transit duration, and normal deterioration. They provide a practical benchmark that protects both buyers and sellers.
4. Good Inspection Guidelines
When concerns arise, inspections must be objective and reliable. To protect themselves, companies should follow our guidelines to ensure that inspection reports have appropriate evidentiary value regarding the product’s condition at the destination.
Building a Fair, Reliable Global Marketplace
As produce continues to flow through increasingly complex supply chains, the DRC equips companies with the structure, knowledge, and confidence they need to operate successfully. Whether you’re entering new markets, strengthening existing relationships, or looking to reduce risk, the DRC supports a trading environment defined by predictability and professionalism.
Join the DRC—and take part in a global fresh produce community rooted in clarity, integrity, and trust.
Growers and shippers exporting to both the United States and Canada often use quality destination inspection services offered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
The inspection reports from these agencies are considered prima facie evidence. This means their findings are accepted at face value when determining the quality and condition of produce at the destination.
At the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC), we frequently receive questions from exporters and shippers about how to interpret these reports, especially when selling into both markets. To add clarity, the major differences between USDA and CFIA inspection practices are outlined below.
1. Grade Standards
USDA inspectors evaluate product strictly according to U.S. Grade Standards.
CFIA inspectors use Canadian Grade Standards, and when no Canadian standard is available for a particular commodity, then U.S. Grade Standards apply as the default.
A key distinction:
USDA reports explicitly state whether the commodity meets or fails to meet the requested grade.
CFIA reports do not indicate a pass or fail status for the referenced grade standard.
2. Permanent/Quality vs. Condition Defects
CFIA clearly distinguishes defect types using acronyms:
(C) – Condition defect
(C/K) – Condition defect on a cut specimen
(P) – Permanent/quality defect (interior)
(P/K) – Permanent/quality defect on a cut specimen (interior)
USDA reports differentiate by listing quality/permanent defects first, usually noting the word “quality” in the description. Condition defects follow afterward.
3. Type of Defects
USDA identifies the severity of each defect—injury, damage, serious damage, or very serious damage—in designated columns.
CFIA scores damage only.
Severity (serious or very serious) must be inferred from the description, often based on the surface area affected.
If no surface area is noted, the defect is considered “damage” unless it is inherently serious, such as decay.
4. Temperature Reporting
CFIA reports temperatures in Celsius.
USDA reports temperatures in Fahrenheit.
5. Carrier Information
USDA reports include a dedicated section for carrier information when the carrier is still present at the receiver’s location.
CFIA includes carrier details within the “Where Inspected” section and may add further notes in “Remarks.”
6. Range/Variant of Defects
CFIA reports include a “range” column showing the lowest and highest percentage of each defect found in the sampled product.
USDA reports include this range within the defect description rather than in a separate column.
Narrative Information
Inspectors from both agencies use descriptive terms that correspond to percentage ranges. While similar, the ranges differ slightly:
Term
CFIA
USDA
Occasional
1 to 5%
5% or less
Few
6 to 10%
5 to 10%
Some
11 to 25%
10 to 25%
Many
26 to 45%
25 to 45%
Approximately Half
46 to 55%
45 to 55%
Most, Mostly
56 to 89%
55 to 90%
Generally
90 to 94%
90%
Nearly All
95% or More
95%
Why Understanding These Differences Matters
Under the DRC Good Inspection Guidelines, always use government agency quality destination inspection services as the primary source of evidence when available. For this reason, it’s essential for members to understand how to interpret USDA and CFIA reports accurately.
Equally important is considering the terms of the transaction, which can influence how inspection results should be applied.
If you are unsure how to interpret an inspection report or need guidance, contact DRC’s Trading Assistance staff or Help Desk for expert support. Don’t hesitate, as getting accurate advice can make a significant difference in your transaction outcomes.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) welcomed nineteen new members in March 2026. Additionally, some existing members have changed their membership status. Scroll below for more information.
Welcome New Members
2478339 ONTARIO INC.
ON
Canada
AKM IMPORT EXPORT / LE VILLAGE KAFE (Faisant également affaire sous 9231-8526 Quebec Inc.)
QC
Canada
AKSHAR TRADE GLOBAL INC.
ON
Canada
ALGCAN IMPORT INC.
QC
Canada
DELINOIS DISTRIBUTION (A d/b/a of Steeve Picard Delinois)
ON
Canada
EAST COAST WILD BLUEBERRY LTD.
NS
Canada
FIRST MATE TRADING CORP.
AB
Canada
FRESH GARLIC CANADA ULC
ON
Canada
FRUTICOLA VILLAMANGOS SPR DE RL
Chiapas
Mexico
GREEN SUPERFOOD GLOBAL SAS
Quindio
Colombia
LES FERMES DU SOLEIL INC.
QC
Canada
OCEAN HARVEST SEAFOODS INC.
BC
Canada
Q&Q FOOD PROCESSING INC.
BC
Canada
RACINE PETITS FRUITS 2025 INC.
QC
Canada
SIMILIEN PRODUITS FRAIS INC.
QC
Canada
SKINNER PRODUCE INC. (Also d/b/a WYCO Produce Inc.)
FL
United States
TRANSYC FREIGHT SOLUTION LTD.
ON
Canada
UNI-ONE FOOD GROUP INC.
BC
Canada
VANCO FARMS LTD.
PE
Canada
DRC Membership Change in Status
As of March 31, 2026, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:
9530-2576 QUEBEC INC.
QC
Canada
AVOCATS M. AGUSTIN INC.
QC
Canada
CANADA GARLIC IMPORTING INC.
ON
Canada
CAN-AM PRODUCE & TRADING LTD.
BC
Canada
COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SILA INC. / SILA INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ON
Canada
DIAZTECA COMPANY
AZ
United States
FRASER VALLEY FARM MARKET INC.
BC
Canada
FRESH DIRECT, INC.
AZ
United States
FRUITBREEZE LLC.
FL
United States
GAIA PRODUCE LLC.
NY
United States
GLOBAL BIO INC.
QC
Canada
MIKE AND MIKE’S INC.
ON
Canada
MIRAGE FOODS INC.
NB
Canada
NEXATECH INC.
ON
Canada
RACINE PETITS FRUITS 2014 INC.
QC
Canada
RAMSUN CANADA INC. (Also d/b/a Ramsun)
ON
Canada
TRANSPORT JUSTINT IMPORT-EXPORT INC.
QC
Canada
TRINITY FRUIT COMPANY, INC.
CA
United States
VANCO PRODUCE LTD.
PE
Canada
For questions about membership changes, contact our Help Desk.
The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for the fresh produce industry. The DRC serves as a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a member of the DRC.
In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services, and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who fail to conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.
The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation and mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.
Why is the Bill of Lading (BoL) particularly important in the ground transportation of produce?
The Bill of Lading (BoL) plays a crucial role in the transportation of commodities, but in the ground transportation of the fresh produce industry, it becomes more significant.
Produce sellers and buyers with years of experience in produce transportation know that the BoL serves as the legally binding contract of carriage between the carrier and their principal—whether that principal is the shipper or the receiver.
What makes a produce BoL particularly important, and distinct from BoLs used in other industries, is that in the fresh fruit and vegetable trade, the shipper is the one who issues the BoL. It is not created by the carrier or freight forwarder.
In transactions where the carrier is hired by the buyer or receiver—such as Free on Board (FOB) sales—the buyer provides the carrier with all necessary transportation instructions and requirements but, it not the carrier who prepares the BoL nor do they have any say over the information that goes on it, until they receive it from the shipper. This means the carrier must ensure that the buyer’s instructions align with the BoL issued by the shipper.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has extensive experience handling produce disputes, including transportation claims. Sporadically, we find discrepancies between the BoL and the transportation instructions provided by the shipper or the receiver. These conflicts often involve differences in carton counts, inconsistent temperature requirements, or other critical handling details.
So, what should be done when conflicting information appears on these documents?
If a driver fails to compare the BoL with the instructions received, the carrier will likely default to the BoL, since it is the binding contract of carriage. However, relying solely on the BoL may not lead to the best outcome. Any inconsistency between documents should immediately prompt communication—either with the shipper or, in the case of an FOB transaction, with the receiver who hired the carrier.
Clarifying differences early is essential. It helps prevent disputes, protects the carrier, and ensures the shipment is handled in accordance with the correct requirements.
If you have any questions about the article and would like to learn more, our team at the DRC is here to assist you. We value your inquiries and are eager to provide support. Click here to proceed.
Dispute over reduced payments on several invoices due to the produce being incorrect in size, count, or in deteriorated condition.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has developed a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.
The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is to administer the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.
ABSTRACT
The arbitration decision addresses a dispute between parties from Mexico and Canada. The dispute began when Respondent issued short payments for various transactions, claiming that some shipments related to those transactions had problems, such as poor quality, incorrect product sizes, or incorrect quantities. The Claimant disagreed with these claims.
The arbitrator concluded that there was not enough evidence to support the Respondent’s arguments for reducing payments on certain transactions.
This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.
From June 2005 to August 2005, the Claimant sold a series of loads of mangoes to the Respondent.
The Claimant initiated this arbitration case because he believes the Respondent had not fully paid for these loads as outlined in the invoices and still owes him a total of US$9,544.00. Additionally, he claims the payments he received were late, which entitles him to interest. He is also seeking reimbursement of US$600.00 for the costs associated with filing this claim.
The Respondent disputes these allegations. In his Statement of Defence, he asserts that two of the loads were short in quantity, that the wrong sizes were shipped for two other loads, and that one load was compromised by excessive heat, leading to quality loss. As a result, he has made payments to the Claimant that reflect the actual value of what he received.
It seems that the two parties have engaged in extensive telephone conversations about the various loads at different times. However, neither party has documented any verbal agreements with written evidence, such as signed faxes, resulting in confusion about what was discussed and when.
The entire Arbitration Decision Brief, DRC File #18232, is available for viewing and downloading. Inside, you will discover additional information such as:
Summary of Facts The Arbitrator’s Analysis and Reasoning The Arbitrator’s Decision DRC’s Comments Filled with Helpful Tips Additional Resources
Need Help Navigating Fresh Produce Trade Disputes?
Contact the DRC for information on memberships and expert guidance on preventing and resolving disputes.
Reach out to us today at info@fvdrc.com or visit www.fvdrc.com/contact to discover how we can help you trade with confidence anywhere in the world.
