The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) welcomed 6 new members in July 2026. Additionally, some existing members have changed their membership status. Scroll below for more information.
Welcome New Members
BAKHSHI GLOBAL INC. (Also d/b/a MNB Cash and Carry) ON Canada EPIC PRODUCE SALES, LLC AZ United States LADYMEX GROWER INC. TX United States SS FRESH PRODUCE (A d/b/a of 17909632 Canada Limited) ON Canada SUPERMARCHÉ AURÈS INC. QC Canada TROPICAN CAPITAL INC. QC Canada
DRC Membership Change in Status
As of July 31st, 2026, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:
9468-9247 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada CANA PACKING INC., NS, Canada DIRTY LAUNDRY VINEYARD LTD., BC, Canada EVER TRU FARMS, ON, Canada EXPERTS GEOCONSEILS INC (Faisant également affaire sous EGC), QC, Canada HATTI FOODS INC., ON, Canada HUMBER HOLDINGS CORP., SK, Canada J P MARKET INC. (Also d/b/a J P Market), ON, Canada NAB GLOBAL SERVICES (A d/b/a of Joshua Agyemang Badu), AB, Canada NUTERRA (A d/b/a of Torobunch-Pro Inc.), QC, Canada PIÑALES DEL CARIBE GAC SA, Limón, Costa Rica SANTIS PRODUCE LLC., TX, United States VF TRADE FRESH INC., ON, Canada VIRSA TASTES (A d/b/a of Jaswinder Singh), ON, Canada XATLANTIC ENTERPRISES INC., ON, Canada YYY FOODS PROCESSING INC., BC, Canada
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) is a not-for-profit membership-based entity 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, or export) unless exempt under the regulations. The DRC has members in 19 countries, 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. 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.
One of the most common sources of disputes in the fresh produce industry involves temperature management during transportation. Understanding how refrigerated trailers function—and how airflow, loading practices, equipment condition, and monitoring affect product quality—can help reduce risk and prevent costly claims. Originally researched and written by Karen Davidson, Editor of The Grower publication, this article provides practical guidance for those involved in transporting fresh fruits and vegetables.
The reefer download shows a flat 36°F for the entire run, pickup to delivery.
You open the trailer at the dock, pull a clamshell from three rows deep, slide in a probe, and it reads 48°F. The rejection email is already in your inbox.
So which number is wrong?
Neither.
The reefer temperature measures the air circulating back to the evaporator. Your probe is measuring the pulp temperature of the fruit. Two different readings, two different stories, and on a load where airflow can’t reach every pallet, they often disagree by a lot. And you’re the one footing the bill in the process. That said, most of the causes are mechanical, physical, and procedural–and easily fixable once you can see them.
Why doesn’t the reefer set point match the product temperature?
Short answer: they’re measuring two different things, and the reefer was never built to tell you what the pulp is doing. Part of the trouble is a vocabulary problem. Four different temperatures get treated as one number on the dock, and they are not the same:
Set point: What you dialed in: an instruction, not a measurement.
Supply air: The chilled air leaving the evaporator, on its way into the box.
Return air: The air coming back to the unit after it has moved through the load.
Product temperature: What a probe reads when you push it into the pulp.
The reefer manages air. It can’t read the middle of a pallet three rows deep, and most units are built to keep cold products cold, not chase down heat the shipper sent in warm. So the trailer holds set point while a warm pallet in the nose takes hours to catch up, and hot spots build in dead zones the return-air sensor never sees.
That’s why one reading, stripped of context, sends you after the wrong problem. When air and pulp disagree, check the load, the precool, and the airflow before anyone blames the box.
How does air actually move through a refrigerated trailer?
Airflow is where most of the trouble hides, so it helps to picture the loop before worrying about what any sensor reads inside it. Cold air leaves the unit at the front top of the trailer, runs the length of the ceiling, drops over the load, picks up heat, and returns along the floor to the evaporator. Then the cycle starts again.
That loop only works, though, if the load gives the air somewhere to go, and a few common loading habits can shut it down:
Pallets jammed against the walls choke the sides and pinch off the downward path.
Product blocking the floor channels chokes the return and starves the evaporator of warm air to work on.
A load stacked too tall crowds the ceiling and keeps supply air from reaching the rear. Any one of those turns the back of the trailer into a dead zone, which is where the air chute earns its keep. A good chute carries cold air past the front pallets, and delivers it to the door end before it runs out of push.
Without one, or with a shortened one, the rear of the load drifts warm for the entire trip while the temperature log still looks clean.
What are the most common reasons a sensor reads warmer or colder than expected?
Once the airflow picture is clear, the next question is what trips it up on real loads. Most discrepancies trace back to a short list of very fixable causes.
The trailer wasn’t precooled: The GCCA calls precooling a baseline practice, and for good reason. Loading cold products into a warm box transfers heat straight into the pallets before the doors close. Set point alone does not confirm precool. Someone has to verify the air temperature in the nose and the tail before the first pallet rolls in.
The load blocks its own airflow: Even a precooled trailer fails if the pallets strangle the loop. Products need gap space from the walls and a stack height that does not crowd the ceiling. Pallets touching the walls conduct outside heat into the product. Wall loading wrecks temperature uniformity, which is why the back corners so often read warm.
The unit is in the wrong mode: Good loading still loses if the reefer is run the wrong way. Sensitech recommends continuous mode for fresh perishables because it makes small adjustments and holds a tighter band. Fuel saver or cycle sentry means that temperatures may drift between cycles, creating hot spots or top freezing on sensitive cargo.
The trailer itself is the problem: Sometimes the equipment is the weak link. A torn air chute, a blocked return, a bad door seal, or a damaged wall panel will quietly undo everything else you did right. Don’t overlook this factor: FDA rules require transportation equipment to maintain a certain temperature.
Something happened on the road: Finally, when the hardware checks out, look at the trip itself. Sharp spikes, light events, and off-route door openings point to handling rather than mechanics. Extra stops, a long lunch with the doors cracked, a curious receiver who peeked early. Those fingerprints show up in the data when you have the right visibility.
Where should I place a temperature monitor and how do I interpret it?
Finding the root cause is only useful if you are collecting the right data in the first place. Sensitech’s anchor recommendation is the rear pallet, right side facing the door, at eye level. The door end runs warmest, the spot is repeatable, and a receiver can retrieve the device without tearing the load apart.
How can I turn temperature alerts into a repeatable response process?
A good alert tells you a pallet is warming up. It doesn’t tell you who to call, what to say, or whether the driver can still do anything about it. That silence between the ping and the fix is where loads are lost, while the sensor and the software sit back, satisfied they did their jobs.
Five steps keep that from happening:
Write the SOPs before you need them: Put precooling, loading inspection, operating mode selection, and monitor placement into documented procedures your team follows on every load. An SOP you invent at 2:00 a.m. during a claim is not a sound SOP.
Assign every alert type an owner and a next action: A temperature excursion, a door-open event, and a late-stage spike should each have a name attached—and a specific first move. Ambiguity is how products spoil in a parking lot while four people debate who calls the driver.
Investigate with context, not just a number: Pull the lane, commodity, sensor placement, loading photos, reefer mode, door-open log, and trailer condition before drawing conclusions. A 48°F spike means one thing on a hot Phoenix dock and something very different on a mountain pass at night.
Close the loop in writing: Document what happened, what the team did, and whether it worked. Patterns only show up when you can compare last Tuesday’s load to the one from three months ago—without relying on anyone’s memory.
Let the system do the escalating: A workflow engine built on triggers, conditions, and actions can route the right alert to the right person, escalate when nobody responds, and skip the ones that do not need a human. Knowing why the reefer temperature and the pulp drifted apart only matters if the response happens fast enough to save the load.
Key Takeaway
For DRC members, temperature-related disputes often hinge on questions of handling, documentation, and accountability.
By understanding how refrigerated trailers function and by implementing consistent procedures for loading, monitoring, and responding to temperature events, companies can reduce risk and strengthen their position when issues arise.
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.
Under the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) Good Inspection Guidelines, unless otherwise agreed, DRC members who receive product in a deteriorated condition must request a third-party quality inspection, preferably a government inspection, to demonstrate that the product fails to meet the agreed-upon quality standard (specs) or the DRC Good Arrival Guidelines. While there are many elements to consider when requesting an inspection, one of the most important factors for a receiver is ensuring that a representative sample of the load is available when the inspector arrives.
How is a representative sample determined?
For DRC purposes, unless otherwise agreed, a useful rule of thumb comes from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s “appeal inspection” requirements. To qualify for an appeal inspection, more than 75% of the load must be available for inspection. Otherwise, if less than 75% of the load remains, an appeal inspection cannot be conducted because the remaining product is not considered a representative sample.
Additionally, the percentage of the product not available for inspection is normally considered to be in sound condition.
What if less than 75% of the load is available for inspection?
If less than 75% of the shipment remains available for inspection, contact the shipper or seller immediately and let them know the reasons why you are unable to have the full load available for inspection.
The parties should discuss whether the quantity remaining can still be considered representative of the full load. Another option is for the receiver to pay in full for the percentage of the product that is not available for inspection and offer to claim damages on the percentage of the load remaining, provided the inspection shows that the product fails to meet the agreed-upon quality standard (specs) or DRC Good Arrival Guidelines.
Handling product before an inspection
Receivers should exercise caution when moving, reselling, or otherwise handling produce before an inspection takes place.
If part of a shipment has already been sold to customers and those customers later reject the product, obtaining an inspection after the product is returned may not preserve the receiver’s rights against the shipper or seller. Even if the full quantity is recovered, the product may be considered “handled,” and it may be argued that the shipment has lost its identity after leaving the receiver’s control and being returned.
For this reason, receivers should arrange for an inspection as soon as a quality problem is discovered and before significant portions of the shipment are sold, moved, or otherwise handled.
Key Takeaway
When quality concerns arise, a timely inspection is critical. Equally important is ensuring that enough of the shipment remains available to constitute a representative sample. Without one, a receiver may face significant challenges in proving a claim and recovering losses from the shipper or seller.
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.
Navigating customs regulations is one of the most complex and high-risk aspects of global trade, especially in the fresh produce industry, where timing is critical. For businesses importing or exporting goods, even small errors can bring costly delays, penalties, or spoiled shipments. This is why many companies rely on customs brokers to manage documentation and regulatory requirements, helping shipments move quickly across borders.
What a Customs Broker Does
Whether you are new to importing and exporting or operating without a dedicated logistics team, a customs broker can help simplify the process and keep your supply chain running smoothly. Over the years, customs brokers have become more than facilitators in getting commodities across borders. Depending on the level of service required, they may assist with:
Collecting, reviewing, and assessing documentation.
Determining taxes, duties, classifications, and valuation.
Submitting declarations on behalf of the importer.
Using their experience to help you grow your business.
Additionally, customs brokers provide educational services that inform importers and exporters how to import into Canada or the USA. These services include information on INCOTERMS, CFIA and FDA-regulated goods, product classification, and Non-Resident Importers. For example, Pacific Customs Brokers (PCB) has created an informative learning center with valuable trade resources for businesses, importers, and exporters: https://learningcenter.pcb.ca/.
Customs brokers stay up to date on policy and regulatory modifications. They use advanced technology, professional expertise, and customized trade solutions to ensure every shipment is managed and declared in compliance with Customs requirements, minimizing loss or penalties and helping secure passage through Customs.
Why Hiring a Customs Broker Makes Business Sense
In today’s global trade environment, many moving parts are often too complex to manage, let alone understand, without the proper tools. Customs brokers help businesses stay focused on their core activities by navigating these complexities.
Hiring a customs broker makes excellent business sense, prepares you for the unexpected, and gives you peace of mind to protect your business and prevent a potential trade dispute.
How the DRC Can Help
Even with expert guidance, disputes over quality, payment, or contract terms can sometimes occur. In these situations, the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) provides industry-specific support to help resolve conflicts and keep your business relationships on track.
Should you encounter a dispute or need guidance on resolving issues in your fruit and vegetable trade, the DRC can provide trusted support through membership.
Contact us today to find out how we can help protect your business interests.
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 failed to pay five (5) freight invoices within the agreed payment terms. The Respondent claimed that one shipment was received at high temperatures, which led to the withholding of payment on four (4) other invoices.
The arbitrator determined that the Respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence that the load in question arrived with high pulp temperatures due to exposure to undesirable transport temperatures.
This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.
The Claimant is demanding payment for five (5) freight invoices that involved the carriage of the Respondent’s produce to the Respondent. These transactions took place between January 23, 2015 and March 11, 2015.
Respondent is claiming that there was damage to one of the shipments.
Claimant has offered, in an email, a final settlement in the amount of a $4,000.00 adjustment to their invoices to resolve the matter with immediate payment to be issued accordingly.
Claimant is seeking a total of USD$30,700.00, which includes USD$2,200.00 Arbitration Filing Fees.
Respondent has not stated their losses in any manner. Respondent has simply stated, “We are attaching all the documents and also the emails which they were trying to negotiate with us, and they are trying to offer us a small amount of money that was for settlement in this case. We are defending according to the CFIA Report.”
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Claimant has supplied copies of signed bills of lading (BoL’s) on all five (5) shipments with the exception of the BoL for invoice #17294, dated January 28, 2015, that had a “Hi” temperature notation on arrival. There were no other notations on the signed delivery receipts for the other four (4) shipments.
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Respondent’s total Statement of Defence in this matter was quoted above in the Summary of Fact, and the arbitrator will repeat it again here.
“We are attaching all documents and also emails which they were trying to negotiate with us and they were trying to offer us a small amount of money that was settlement this case. We are defending according to CFIA Report.”
Respondent has not accounted for any losses by virtue of an account of sale, dump or donation certificates and/or any other form of defined notice of loss.
SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING
The supporting documentation the Respondent has submitted clearly references BoL#17771, which was signed completely clean and free of protest on arrival.
The BoLs do not specify a desired temperature while in transit, but the Claimant’s invoices state that 35°F is to be maintained.
The BoL with the “Hi” temperature notation was on a shipment in February 2015, BoL# 17294.
Therefore, it appears that Respondent is claiming losses on a properly delivered shipment (BoL# 17771) and not on the shipment that arrived with high temperatures. (BoL# 17294)
Invoice# 17294 had 15 different items on the load. That being said, there are four (4) CFIA Inspection certificates submitted by the Respondent for only four of those items. Two certificates show normal pulp temperatures (Gai Lan: 34.5°F; Baby Bok Choy: 34-35°F). One certificate for Yu Choy Sum shows 37.2°F. Recommended temperatures for this product must be assumed to be as stated on Claimant’s invoices, as 35°F. Given that it is only warmer by 2°F, one would not expect the damage to be too severe, if any. The other certificate for Yu Choy Mieu shows 37.2-39.5°F, which might be considered a little on the warmer side.
Three of the certificates show large percentages of “limp and pliable,” and the 4th certificate shows “bruising and wilting”. There are four (4) varieties of vegetables highlighted as the damaged goods in question on the invoice from the Respondent’s supplier in Texas. The other 11 varieties have not been highlighted nor inspected as per the submitted documents.
The extent of the damages cited by CFIA on these 4 items could possibly be attributed to poor shipping condition at the time of shipment. In addition, the temperatures during shipment did not affect 11 items or 73% or the load.
Respondent is claiming on a load that was received without objections. Respondent did not claim on the load that was protested for “Hi” temperatures. Included in the Respondent’s documents is a temperature recording tape; however, a temperature recording device with a serial number or tape number is not documented or identified to verify which shipment this tape belongs to. Further to that, the tape submitted reflects the in-transit temperature of 32-33°F.
There is, however, an email that the Respondent submitted where it appears there had to be some discussions about temperature and losses.
Claimant submitted an email dated June 10, 2015, suggesting splitting a $22,136.00 loss three ways. There is no indication whether this loss was USD$ or CAD$.
Furthermore, Claimant offered only a credit of $3,000.00 (no mention of currency) and then finally raised the offer to $4,000.00 with immediate payment of the balance due.
In my opinion, this email does not present itself as an admission by the Claimant to causing any damage; more so, it represents a token of trying to resolve a problem and move forward.
Regardless of any of the commentary provided herein, Respondent is claiming on a shipment that was signed free and clear on arrival.
Respondent has not submitted any claim or documentation to substantiate the claim, on the only shipment that had a notation as to “Hi” temperatures. Therefore, the arbitrator concluded there were no objections or consequences from that shipment arriving with “Hi” temperatures.
ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION
The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Claimant. Respondent must remit to Claimant the amount of USD$30,700.00 within 30 days of the date of this decision.
DRC COMMENTS
It’s essential to understand your responsibilities as the receiver to ensure you have the necessary documentation and make accurate annotations. This will help you support your claim in case any issues arise with the received product.
As a receiver, your responsibilities include the following:
Taking Pulp Temperatures: Measure the temperature of the product upon arrival, before and during unloading the truck. If you notice any undesirable temperatures, collect the temperature recorders, document their location, and load the product back
Request a temperature and condition inspection as soon as possible.
Documenting on the Bill of Lading (BoL): If you receive the product under protest, clearly indicate the reasons for this on the BoL. Additionally, request a download from the reefer unit.
Addressing Missing Temperature Recorders: If the shipper includes one or more temperature recording devices with the load, but none are found upon arrival, you must document the missing recorders and address this issue with the carrier.
Notify the carrier and the shipper of a potential claim.
By following these steps, you can ensure proper notice is provided to the shipper and the carrier.
Another important aspect of this decision is that, when there are multiple transactions between the parties and an invoice is in dispute, payments on invoices that are not in dispute should not be withheld until the dispute is resolved unless there is an agreement between the parties.
According to the DRC Trading Standards, all members are required to meet their financial obligations by paying invoices within the agreed payment terms. If no specific payment terms have been established, payments should adhere to the DRC Trading Standards. Undisputed invoices cannot be withheld unless there is an offsetting agreement between the parties, including the transportation company.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) welcomed 12 new members in June 2026. Additionally, some existing members have changed their membership status. Scroll below for more information.
Welcome New Members
0920161 B.C. LTD., BC, Canada 17359250 CANADA LIMITED, ON, Canada ABRASH ENTERPRISES INC. (Also d/b/a Andrews Brothers Inc.), Michigan, United States CANADEXOTIC / CANADEXOTIQUE (Faisant également affaire sous, QC, Canada DUTCHYN FARMS LTD., ON, Canada HEADSTART DIGITAL SOLUTIONS INC. (Also d/b/a Headstart foods), BC, Canada IMPORT EXPORT SEAPASS INC. / SEAPASS TRADING INC., QC, Canada LATIN CORE INC., ON, Canada PARMJIT DHALIWAL, BC, Canada TIERRAMIGOS TRADING & LOGISTICS INC., ON, Canada VIET THAI GREEN PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada YC FRESH PRODUCE INC., BC, Canada
DRC Membership Change in Status
As of June 30, 2026, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:
1000971951 ONTARIO INC., ON, Canada 9487-2181 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada BLACK CHROME TRADING INC., ON, Canada BULK AND BLOOM DISTRIBUTION INC., ON, Canada EINAI IMPORT-EXPORT INC., QC, Canada ELISUR ORGANIC S.A.C., Junín, Peru GMSY CANADA LTD., ON, Canada GREWAL & SONS ENTERPRISES INC., BC, Canada I M C ENTERPRISES LTD., BC, Canada MADHURAM PHARMA COMPANY LTD., BC, Canada MEXI/CANA FRESH QUALITY PRODUCE CORPORATION, BC, Canada ODECO TRADING (A d/b/a of 6396577 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada RV FAMILY PRODUCE LTD., ON, Canada SAM IMPEX INC., QC, Canada SDH GLOBAL CORP., ON, Canada SK ORGANICS FRUITS S.A.C., Callao, Peru SOMERFIELD FARMS LLC, NC, United States UGARIT MARKET (A d/b/a of 2713796 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada VENUSCA GLOBAL CORPORATION, ON, Canada ZURGROUP S.A., Región Metropolitana, Chile
Expulsion Notice
GREWAL & SONS ENTERPRISES INC. was expelled from the DRC membership effective June 23, 2026, for failing to meet its debts as they came due and for failing to provide the requested information.
The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) is a not-for-profit membership-based entity 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, or export) unless exempt under the regulations. The DRC has members in 19 countries, 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. 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.
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.
