Author: DRC

Welcome, new members!

We are delighted to welcome the following members who joined us in March 2025. 

9487 – 2181 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada
9534 – 0089 QUÉBEC INC., QC, Canada
AFRICAN HALAL FOODS INC., AB, Canada
B.C. BLUEBERRIES FARM LTD. (Also d/b/a B.C. Blueberries), BC, Canada
BF COMERCIO Y EXPORTACIONES LIMITADA (También haciendo negocios como BFE), Santiago, Chile
BLOOMS TRADE INC. (Also d/b/a Blooms), Delaware, United States
CREEKSIDE ORGANICS INC., CA, United States
DOCKSIDE MANAGEMENT INC., FL, United States
ECHERI UJCHAKURA PRODUCE (A d/b/a of Arturo Hernandez Villeg), ON, Canada
FLAVOURS OF CHENNAI GROCERS INC., BC, Canada
FRESHWAY FOODS LLC., OH, United States
FRUITBREEZE LLC., FL, United States
GAIA PRODUCE LLC., NY, United States
HILLSIGHT VEGETABLES INC., AB, Canada
JAY KISAN TRADING INC., BC, Canada
KRISHIV IMPORTS LTD. (Also d/b/a Themangoman), ON, Canada
ORAKAI TRADING INC. (Also d/b/a Orakai Trading), BC, Canada
RIVERVALLEY PRODUCE INC., AB, Canada
RLE LOGISTICS INC., AB, Canada
ROSHAN’S BIG BAZAAR LTD. (Also d/b/a Big Bazaar), BC, Canada
RV FAMILY PRODUCE LTD., ON, Canada
TEJA GLOBAL LTD. (Also d/b/a Prep Culinary), ON, Canada
UNITED GROWERS, UNIPESSOAL LDA, Lisbon, Portugal
URBAN HARVEST DISTRIBUTORS INC., ON, Canada
VENUSCA GLOBAL CORPORATION, ON, Canada
YAS VISION INC., ON, Canada

To view a complete list of active members, click here.

DRC Membership: change in status

As of March 31, 2025, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

ALGOMA ORCHARDS LTD., ON, Canada
CAVENDISH FARMS CORPORATION, AB, Canada
CAVENDISH FARMS CORPORATION, ON, Canada
COMERCIALIZADORA TROPIEXPRESS S.A. DE C.V., Puebla, Mexico
DG ALIMENTATIONS (Faisant également affaire sous 11002830 Canada Inc.), QC, Canada
EGYPTIAN CANADIAN PHOENIX LTD., ON, Canada
F.J. SHEA & SON LTD., PE, Canada
FRUIT WORLD COMPANY, INC., CA, United States
GOLDEN LEAF (A d/b/a of 11597124 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
JEWELL’S OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND INC. PE, Canada
NEW DAILY NEEDS PRODUCE ON Canada
NICEBLUE SA Maule Chile
TOMATOES OF RUSKIN, INC. FL United States
YM COURTIER INC. QC Canada

For details regarding a change in status, please get in touch with the office.

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine (9) months from when the claim arose or within nine (9) months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for fresh produce. The DRC is 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 DRC member.

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 do not 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/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 memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

At the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC), we often receive inquiries from growers and shippers regarding their continued responsibility for the quality and condition of the product until it reaches the final destination, particularly when the sale is made under Free on Board (FOB) terms. The FOB Incoterm is generally followed by a specific destination or port of entry, such as McAllen, TX, Nogales, AZ, or Windsor, ON, among others.

To clarify this, it is essential to understand the concept of “suitable shipping condition” as defined in DRC’s Trading Standards, Section 19, Subsection 24:

“In relation to direct shipments, ‘suitable shipping condition’ means that the commodity, at the time of shipment, is in a condition which, if handled under normal transportation conditions, will ensure delivery without abnormal deterioration at the contract destination agreed upon between the parties. The seller has no responsibility for any deterioration during transit if no specific destination is agreed upon.”

This definition emphasizes the seller’s responsibility for ensuring the commodity is shipped in a condition that guarantees it will arrive without abnormal deterioration at the agreed destination, assuming normal transportation practices are followed.

Key Concepts:

The term “suitable shipping condition,” often referred to as “Good Delivery” or “Good Arrival,” is particularly relevant for FOB transactions involving perishable commodities. It is important to note that certain restrictive terms may modify the standard FOB terms, such as “FOB acceptance final” or “shipping point acceptance final.”
Under standard FOB terms:

• The seller guarantees that the product will meet the agreed-upon quality and condition requirements at the time of shipment.
• The seller also ensures the product will not undergo abnormal deterioration during transit, provided optimal shipping conditions, such as the correct temperature and handling time, are maintained.
• It is understood that some deterioration is inevitable over time, even under ideal conditions.

However, while the Incoterm defines the transfer of risk and costs, it does not specify when the grower or shipper’s responsibility for the product’s quality and condition ends.

Consider an example where avocados are sold under “FOB Good Delivery McAllen” terms to a buyer in Montreal. Under these terms, the avocados must meet specific allowable defect thresholds upon arrival at their destination. In this case, DRC Good Arrival Guidelines would apply. For an FOB shipping point transaction, the maximum permissible defects for avocados are:

• 15% total allowable defects
• 8% total allowable serious defects
• 3% total allowable decay

These thresholds align with the PACA Good Delivery Guidelines.

A timely inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) revealed that the product had 18% total defects ((C)5% discoloration, (C)4% decay, and (P)9% scars). The reefer download and temperature recorder confirmed that the product was maintained at the correct temperature throughout transit, with no delays reported. Despite this, the inspection indicated that the decay percentage exceeded the allowable limit, meaning the avocados did not meet the “Good Arrival Guidelines.”

Although the avocados exceeded the total average percentage of defects allowed by good arrival, permanent defects,* such as scars, are not computed in the total average defect calculation or checksum. Therefore, the CFIA inspection indicates 9% total condition defects (defects marked with a (C) before the named defect), which suggests that the avocados meet good arrival standards. However, the product still failed to meet good arrival because the decay exceeded the allowable percentage.

*Under FOB Good Delivery/Good Arrival terms, quality/permanent defects, such as defects marked with a (P) before the named defect in the CFIA inspection, like scars, do not count towards the total average defects or checksum.

Conclusion:

The key takeaway is that under FOB terms while the responsibility for transportation costs and risks may transfer at the point of shipment, the seller remains accountable for ensuring the product is in “suitable shipping condition” at the time of departure. The condition of the product upon arrival at the destination is critical to compliance with the terms, and factors like temperature control, packaging, and initial quality must be considered.

We hope this explanation clarifies any confusion regarding the grower/shipper’s ongoing responsibility for product quality under FOB terms. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our Help Desk.

Kevin Smith, the Vice President of Operations for the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC), attended the 23rd meeting of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV), which was held in Mexico City from 25 February to 1 March 2025. This event plays an integral part in the DRC’s international engagement.

The Codex Alimentarius is an international food standards setting body. These food standards and related texts aim to protect consumer health and ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius guides the establishment of food requirements to enhance international trade.

The CCFFV develops standards specific to fresh fruits and vegetables. In the past, the DRC attended CCFFV as part of the Canadian delegation. This year, recognizing that DRC has recently widened its jurisdiction beyond North America, we attended using our official Codex observer status. The DRC participated with government delegations and fellow observers: the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).

As the DRC pursues its mission for fair and ethical trade, the CCFFV is an excellent venue for contributing to the development of international standards while connecting with governments and fellow stakeholders on our shared goals.

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.

In this dispute, the arbitrator concluded that the product was deemed to have been accepted by the Respondent since the Respondent decided to unload and divert it. The arbitrator also found no evidence of a breach of contract by the Claimant. Although the Respondent promptly informed the Claimant regarding the product arriving at high temperatures, all documentation indicated that the product was loaded at the appropriate temperatures at the shipping point and that the product was exposed to undesired temperatures during transit. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to request a federal inspection to prove the product arrived in deteriorated condition or with high temperatures.

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 Rules and Standards apply in a dispute.

The DRC Dispute Resolution Rules state 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 as administrator of 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 relates to a dispute between parties from the United States and Canada regarding the timely and proper rejection of a product by the Respondent, as well as whether the Claimant breached the contract.

Based on the findings and DRC Rules, the arbitrator determined that the Respondent’s diversion of the product indicated acceptance. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the Claimant breached the contract by shipping cauliflower that was not in proper condition.

This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.

CASE: DRC File #19139 – Parties Domiciled – United States and Canada

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

On March 1, 2013, the Claimant sold a truckload of cauliflower to the Respondent under four different purchase order numbers (PO#2000008664, PO#611312, PO#611311, and PO#611314). The total invoice amount for the purchase was USD$17,273.60.

Each of the four pickup tickets, the four bills of lading, and the loading sheets were signed by the driver. All documents suggested that the product was pulped at 36°F at the time of loading. Additionally, four temperature recorders were placed on the truck.

The load was delivered on March 6 and was rejected due to high temperatures upon arrival. After the Respondent’s quality control team reviewed the information and temperature recorders, it was deemed a carrier claim.

The refrigerated unit was set to Cycle-Sentry mode, contrary to Respondent’s specifications, which indicate that the refrigerator must be set to Continuous mode. Temperature recorder readings confirmed that the product was exposed to higher than desired temperatures during transit.

A CFIA inspection was requested and performed on March 11, 2013 (four days after the product arrived). The inspection certificate showed that the product was affected by 43% brown discoloration.

The Claimant reported proceeds of USD$8,736.00 from the sale of the cauliflower. When this amount was applied to the original invoice price, the unpaid balance was reduced to USD$8,537.60. Additionally, the Claimant deducted $873.60 from an unrelated purchase, bringing the total claim to USD$9,411.20.

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

In order for the arbitrator to determine what liability, if any, lies with the Respondent for the truckload of cauliflower it purchased from the Claimant, there are essentially two questions that must be answered:

1. Did the Respondent reject the cauliflower delivered by the Claimant?
2. Was there a breach of contract by the Claimant?

In answer to the first question, the Respondent agrees that it unloaded the cauliflower after it arrived. According to Section 19 of the DRC Trading Standards, “acceptance” means any action by the consignee that shows they accept the shipment, including unloading or diverting it, unless it’s for inspection by a recognized inspector.

The Respondent’s “FOB Rejection Form” shows that its Quality Assurance (QA) Specialist pulped the cauliflower after it was unloaded. This does not count as an inspection by a recognized inspector (see Section 19 of the DRC Trading Standards). The documents from both parties show that the Respondent also reloaded and diverted the cauliflower. The Claimant states that it didn’t decide to divert the cargo, and the Respondent did not respond to this point. Therefore, it seems the Respondent accepted the cauliflower when it diverted the cargo.

For the above-noted reasons, the arbitrator concluded that the Respondent accepted the cauliflower. Rejecting it after acceptance is seen as an unreasonable rejection under Section 19 of the DRC Trading Standards and is also unfair according to Section 1, General Rules of Conduct, of the same rules. Additionally, Article 2-607 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) states that a buyer who has accepted goods must pay the agreed price minus any penalties for a breach of contract by the seller.

Was there a breach of contract by the Claimant?

The cauliflower was sold on FOB terms, meaning the seller is responsible for delivering the product on board the transport in suitable condition, while the buyer assumes risks after shipment.

The Respondent claimed the cauliflower arrived with elevated pulp temperatures and later asserted it was a carrier-related issue. The Respondent’s Quality Control Specialist reported these higher temperatures, arguing the cauliflower was not pre-chilled properly.

The Claimant countered that the cauliflower was at 36°F upon shipment, supported by the carrier’s signature on the bills of lading. The Respondent claimed this temperature was pre-printed, suggesting it wasn’t verified, but there was no carrier declaration indicating otherwise. Additional documents supported that the cauliflower was indeed pre-cooled properly.

The Claimant argued that elevated temperatures during transit were due to abnormal conditions, specifically related to the refrigeration unit operating in “Cycle-Sentry” mode instead of the recommended Continuous mode for fresh produce.

Thermo King’s download shows that the unit operated in Cycle-Sentry mode, rather than Continuous mode, during the four-day period that the cauliflower was in transit. The carrier’s failure to transport the cauliflower in accordance with Respondent’s instructions establishes that the conditions of transport were not normal. Since the transport conditions deviated from normal, the warranty of proper shipping conditions was void. Thus, the Respondent failed to prove that the Claimant had breached the contract by shipping cauliflower that was not in proper condition. Even if the warranty was applicable, the Respondent did not provide evidence of the cauliflower’s quality at arrival to demonstrate a breach.

ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION:

The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of US$8,537.60, plus the US$600.00 filing fee, within 30 days from this Decision and Award date.

DRC COMMENTS:

As a Free on Board (FOB) buyer or receiver, it is essential to know the steps to take if you receive a product that does not meet the contract terms or DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines. In an FOB transaction, once the carrier picks up the product, the buyer or receiver assumes ownership of the load and bears all risk in transit, including the carrier failing to set the reefer accordingly.

If you notice during unloading that the product does not comply with the contract terms or DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines, you have the right to reject the load. To maintain this right, you must immediately re-load the product back into the truck and request a government inspection or, if agreed upon, a private inspection. If the inspection report confirms that the product does not meet DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines or the contract terms, you have three options: you can reject the product and return it to the shipper, renegotiate the contract terms, or claim damages if a renegotiation cannot be agreed upon and rejecting the load is not an option.

We want to remind you that to properly reject a load, you must follow the procedures outlined in DRC’s Trading Standards – Section 10:

• Do not divert a shipment by sending your product to a location other than that indicated in the bill of lading (BoL).
• Do not unload the shipment except for the purpose of inspection.
• Provide your notice of rejection within a reasonable timeframe.

Shippers are responsible for meeting contract terms or ensuring good delivery to the named destination. If you divert the load, you have unilaterally deviated from the original contract and automatically foregone your rejection rights. While you can still claim damages, you will bear the burden of proof showing that any damages to the product would have been the same or similar had it been delivered to the original destination. Once a load is accepted—either through unloading or diversion—the buyer bears this burden of proof. Be aware that any deviation from the original destination, for any reason, constitutes acceptance of the load.

In this case, if it was noted during unloading that the product had arrived with high pulp temperatures, the Respondent should have proceeded to load the product back into the truck and called for a temperature and condition inspection. The next step should have been to advise all parties involved of possible temperature and condition problems, as well as their intention to reject the load. Once the inspection was performed and had corroborated the product arrived with undesirable pulp temperatures and in deteriorated condition, they could have then proceeded to reject the load.

A rejection to the shipper can only be given, provided the transit times and temperatures are normal. A rejection to the carrier must be noted in the Bill of Lading and the transit problems must be described. In this file, the Respondent chose to unload the product and decided to divert it, which meant that the product was considered accepted. Additionally, since the Respondent did not request an inspection in a timely manner, they failed to provide evidence of the bad condition of the load and therefore could not claim proper damages.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.

Receiver Duties: 

• Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.10 (2)(b)(ii)

DRC Operating Rules:

• Part 6 – Dispute Resolution Rules

Articles:

• Dealing with a Bad Load? Your Options as a Buyer/Receiver Revealed
• Best Practices to Mitigate Risk Transporting Produce
• Accept or Rejected
• Diversion of Load
• Timely Notice of a Problem

Welcome new members!

We are delighted to welcome the following members who joined us in February 2025. 

ADEF IMPORT EXPORT (Faisant également affaire sous 9431-1289 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
ARRCA LLC (Also d/b/a Arrca), TX, United States
AVOCATS M. AGUSTIN INC., QC, Canada
DIANA DISTRIBUTION CENTRE LTD., ON, Canada
DUNE NORDIQUE IMPORT INC., QC, Canada
GLOBAL ORCHARDS STACK LTD. (Also d/b/a Global Orchards), BC, Canada
GOLDEN 8 TRADING INC., BC, Canada
GROWERS TO THE WORLD ENTERPRISES INC. (Also d/b/a Growers), BC, Canada
HM&M INTERNATIONAL FOR TRADING INC., ON, Canada
MANNA INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD., BC, Canada
MZ.IT INC., QC, Canada
RAMSUN CANADA INC. (Also d/b/a Ramsun), ON, Canada
UNITED GROWERS ORGANIZATION INTL INC. (Also d/b/a UGO), ON, Canada
UNITED PRODUCE LTD., ON, Canada
UP VERTICAL FARMS LTD., BC, Canada

To view a complete list of active members, click here.

DRC Membership: change in status

As of February 28, 2025, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

9481-1676 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada
ASIANA MARKET LTD. (Also d/b/a Asia Market), BC, Canada
EMPIRE TRADERS INC., AB, Canada
FRANK & ROBERT GRAPES (A d/b/a of 2271647 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
FRESH FOOD MARKETING INC., ON, Canada
FRUITS EXPRESS (A d/b/a of 8139938 Canada Corporation), ON, Canada
HAUSBECK PICKLE COMPANY (Also d/b/a Hausbeck Pickles and Peppers), MI, United States
MOHAMED AHMED MEGAHED MOUSA INSTITUTION, Dakahlia, Egypt
OCEAN HARVEST SEAFOODS INC., BC, Canada
ONLY THE REALEST SERVICES INC., ON, Canada
ROCK SALT CANADA INC., ON, Canada
SRI INTERNATIONAL INC., QC, Canada
TRANSHING INVESTMENT INC., QC, Canada

For details regarding a change in status, please contact the office.

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

For details regarding a change in status, please contact the office.

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine (9) months from when the claim arose or within nine (9) months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. The DRC is 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 DRC member.

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 do not 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/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 memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

After the publication of our article, “DRC’s Jurisdiction Expansion,” several members and industry stakeholders raised questions about the potential impact of these changes on disputes involving parties outside of North America (Mexico, the United States, or Canada). Specifically, many are curious about how the new rules affect the seat of arbitration, the location of hearings, and the selection of arbitrators. These are important considerations for those not familiar with DRC Dispute Resolution Rules.

Before addressing these questions, we would like to remind everyone that DRC’s trading standards, transportation standards, guidelines, and Dispute Resolution Rules serve as the default provisions in any transaction between members unless otherwise agreed.

1. How is the seat of arbitration and location of hearings affected now that the dispute does not involve commerce with North American companies?

The DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules designate Ontario, Canada, as the seat of arbitration. Ontario is recognized as one of the most favourable jurisdictions for arbitration globally. As outlined in the earlier section of this article, our rules and regulations serve as the default unless a contract specifies otherwise. Therefore, DRC members and any non-members choosing DRC arbitration can mutually agree to designate a different seat of arbitration, provided it suits their needs.¹

It’s important to distinguish between the seat of arbitration and the location of hearings. While the seat of arbitration is legally the jurisdiction in which the arbitration process is based, the location of hearings can differ. If the contract does not specify a hearing location, DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules stipulate that the hearings will be held in Ottawa, Ontario, or at a location determined by the arbitrator. This could be a virtual or in-person hearing, which does not impact the seat of arbitration.

2. What if parties wish to select an arbitrator who is not from DRC’s Roster of Neutrals?

The DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules allow parties to appoint an arbitrator of their choosing, even if the arbitrator is not listed on the DRC’s Roster of Neutrals. However, DRC strongly recommends selecting an arbitrator from our roster for several reasons. Of course, all arbitrators must remain independent and impartial, regardless of how they are selected.

Our roster of neutrals consists of arbitrators who are highly experienced in disputes related to the produce trade. More importantly, they are thoroughly familiar with DRC’s operating rules, including trading standards, transportation standards, and our specific dispute resolution procedures. DRC arbitrators are trained to interpret the contractual terms agreed by the parties, and if the contract is silent on an issue, they prioritize DRC’s standards and guidelines over other laws, such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

Although most of our neutrals were originally from North America, they do possess international experience. Nevertheless, the DRC has expanded its roster to include arbitrators from South America and Europe. These neutrals have completed DRC’s educational process, ensuring they understand our services, rules, and the expectations placed on DRC arbitrators.

It’s also worth noting that in cases where the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, DRC reserves the right to appoint an arbitrator from its roster.

¹ By agreeing to arbitrate under the DRC and its Rules, the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country, in accordance with Ontario’s International Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5, Schedule 2, Article 1(3)(c). Thus, if you choose another seat, it is beneficial if the seat’s arbitration law also permits this, should your dispute not be international.

RESOURCES:

DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules

Article: DRC’s Jurisdiction Expansion

—

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.

Welcome new members!

We are delighted to welcome the following members who joined us in January 2025. 

AGRICOLLIBIO SRL (Also d/b/a Agricollibio), Italy
BOLA DE ORO FRESH SPR DE RL DE CV (También haciendo negocios como Bola de Oro), Oaxaca, Mexico
DOMÉNICK IMPORT INC., QC, Canada
JB AND SONS FARM LTD., BC, Canada
KEMET PRODUCE INC. (Also d/b/a Kemet Produce), ON, Canada
MILLGROVE FARMS SALES INC., ON, Canada
NATTURALE Y CIA SCA, Cundinamarc,a Colombia
NEXATECH INC., ON, Canada
RACCOONADA NUTS AND DRIED FRUITS TRADING INC., ON, Canada
RUMA MEXI-CAN FOOD AND BEVERAGE INC., BC, Canada
THE FRUITY WORLD INC., ON, Canada

To view a complete list of active members, click here.

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of January 31st, 2025, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

9461-1886 QUÉBEC INC., QC, Canada
A.S.T. DISTRIBUTION (Faisant également affaire sous 9400-1237 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
ADEF IMPORT EXPORT (Faisant également affaire sous 9431-1289 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
AGRI-FRESH INC., MB, Canada
ALQUIMIA FRUITS S.L., Catalonia, Spain
BARNSTON ISLAND HERB CORPORATION, BC, Canada
BC HOT HOUSE FOODS ( A Division of Star Produce Ltd.), BC, Canada
CFP CONSOLIDATED FRUIT PACKERS (A Division of Star Produce Ltd.), BC, Canada
COLINAS PRODUCTS, LLC. (Also d/b/a Colinas Foods), TX, United States
COMPTON BROS. INC., PE, Canada
DIMARE HOMESTEAD, INC., FL, United States
GESTION C BOURGEOIS INC., QC, Canada
HANIF PRODUCE, ON, Canada
LES SERRES ROYALES INC., QC, Canada
MEXAVO PRODUCE INC., QC, Canada
MMK GROUP INC., ON, Canada
MZ.IT INC., QC, Canada
PACIFIC GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, INC., BC, Canada
RED CROWN VENTURES LTD. (Also d/b/a Red Crown Pomegranate Juice), BC, Canada
SANLLO CANADA INC. (Also d/b/a Sanllo), ON, Canada
SANLLO EXPORT, S. L. (Also d/b/a Sanllo), Valencia, Spain
STAR PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
STAR PRODUCE LTD., AB, Canada
TOOTTI FROOTTI (A d/b/a of On-A-Bun Franchising Inc.), ON, Canada
UVA ENTERPRISE CORP., BC, Canada
WHOLE LEAF LTD., AB, Canada
WORLD FRESH PRODUCE CANADA INC., QC, Canada

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

For details regarding a change in status, please contact the office.

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine (9) months from when the claim arose or within nine (9) months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. The DRC is 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 DRC member.

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 do not 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/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 memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

The DRC Story

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) is excited to share that 2025 marks our 25th anniversary, a milestone in our journey that underscores our long-standing commitment to the fresh produce industry.

In the late 1990s, a process was initiated to establish the DRC. This process took time to develop. The need for the DRC arose after observing a significant growth in private commercial disputes following the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While a dispute resolution system existed in the United States under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), Canada’s existing regulatory system proved ineffective in resolving most disputes, and cases were rising. In addition, Mexico had no international dispute settlement mechanism in place.

With a focus on minimizing and preventing trade irritants within North America, the DRC, a non-profit, membership-based organization serving the produce trade, was born in February 2000. Patterned mainly after the PACA system, the DRC evolved into a Tri-National Alternative Dispute Resolution Model that included fresh produce industry representatives and government officials from Canada, Mexico, and the US.

You may recall DRC’s iconic triangle-shaped logo. This design symbolized the collaborative spirit fostering a commitment towards a harmonious trade environment within the three nations and their commercial partners.

Since the creation of the DRC, we have successfully helped prevent and resolve millions of dollars in disputes. This evolution showcased our adaptability and unwavering commitment to improving legislation, establishing industry standards, and creating a fair and ethical environment for all participants.

In 2020, it felt time to refresh our brand. Inspired by organic shapes derived from fruits and vegetables, our new logo symbolizes the coming together of different parts of our industry. The shapes represent growth and progress, while the fresh and vibrant colour palette indicates the fruit and vegetable world. The green, orange and red hues represent the traditional ripening process of many of our crops. Our tagline, “Trade with Confidence,” captures our goal to equip you with the necessary information and tools you need BEFORE entering a new commercial transaction, introducing a sense of assurance in your trading decisions.

On January 6th, 2024, we amended our Operating Rules to expand DRC’s jurisdiction, underscoring our commitment to fairness in worldwide trade. The expansion allows the DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules (specifically informal mediation, formal mediation, and arbitration services) to operate with a broader geographical spectrum, provided that both parties are members of the DRC at the time of the dispute, regardless of their location or where the product was traded.

As we celebrate our 25th anniversary, we look forward to continuing our mission to bring the necessary guidelines, education and services for successful commerce and trading partnerships. Thank you for joining us on this journey, and here’s to many more successful years of collaboration and growth. Let’s #tradewithconfidence!

RESOURCES: 

DRC By-Laws and Operating Rules

New York Convention