Author: DRC

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on X
• Email this Page

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.

CASE: DRC File #20568 – Parties Domiciled – Canada

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

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.

DRC Dispute Resolution Rules – Article 4

Solutions Newsletter Articles

• Inspection – Performed in a timely manner
• Timely Notice of a Problem
• Back to Basics: Account of Sales
• Claiming Damages: The Power of an itemized Account of Sales

 

Summary: Membership Update

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

About the DRC

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.

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on X
• Email this Page

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:

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.

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on X
• Email this Page

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.

Summary: Membership Update

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.

About the DRC

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 memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on X
• Email this Page

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.

CASE: DRC File #18232 – Parties Domiciled – Mexico and Canada

SUMMARY OF FACTS

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.

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.

Summary: Membership Update

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) welcomed eleven new members in February 2026. Additionally, some existing members have changed their membership status. Scroll below for more information.

Welcome New Members

ACH DISTRIBUTION INC. / DISTRIBUTION ACH INC., QC, Canada
BERRYHILL FARM INC., ON, Canada
Damen Service Alimentaire (A d/b/a of 9427-9734 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
DESARROLLADORA Y PROMOTORA AGROPECUARIA SA DE CV Estado de Mexico, Mexico
FERME J.E. BARBEAU (Faisant également affaire sous 9208, QC, Canada
FRESH AND NUTS SPA, Cachapoal, Chile
KMAX INCORPORATED, ON, Canada
MMK GROUP INC., ON, Canada
NOSTALGIA INC., AB, Canada
PARADIS DES FRUITS DE LA PASSION INC. (Also d/b/a Passion Fruits Paradise Inc.), QC, Canada
UPNORTH FRUIT SERVICES LTD., BC, Canada

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of February 28th, 2026, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

BERRYHILL FARM, ON, Canada
CONNORS TRANSFER LIMITED, NS, Canada
COSTA’S WINE COUNTRY (A d/b/a of 2638186 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
DASAM FOODS INC., QC, Canada
DIMARE RUSKIN, INC., FL, United States
DISTRIBUTION CARELO INC., QC, Canada
EZ GROW FARMS LTD., ON, Canada
FRESH PLUS PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
FRESHWAY FOODS (A d/b/a of Fresh Unlimited, Inc.), OH, United States
GROUPE ADONIS INC (Faisant également affaire sous Marché Adonis), QC, Canada
INTIFRESH DEL SUR SAC (También haciendo negocios como Intifresh Del Sur), Piura, Peru
JOSEPH QUATTROCCHI & COMPANY LTD. (Quattrocchi Food Services), ON, Canada
LES FERMES DU SOLEIL INC., QC, Canada
LIMONEIRA COMPANY, CA, United States
MAGNOLIA PACKING INC., GA, United States
ORLEANS FRESH FRUIT (A d/b/a of 927912 Ontario Ltd.), ON, Canada
PRIMLAND CANADA ENTERPRISES INC. / ENTREPRISES PRIMLAND CANA, QC, Canada
QUEEN OF JACA LTDA, Brazil
RLE LOGISTICS INC., AB, Canada
TEJA GLOBAL LTD. (Also d/b/a Prep Culinary), ON, Canada
WESTSHORE TRADING (1988) LTD., BC, Canada

For questions about membership changes, contact our Help Desk.

About the DRC

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 memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

Summary

The DRC welcomed ten new members in January 2026. Additionally, some existing members have changed their status, and one was terminated with cause. Scroll below for more information.

Welcome New Members

9472-0497 QUÉBEC INC., QC, Canada
BRIGHT FARM STOUFFVILLE (A d/b/a of 2621990 Ontario Ltd.), ON, Canada
ECO FARMS TRADING OPERATIONS LLC., CA, United States
FRIENDSHIP SPECIALTY MUSHROOM FARM LTD., BC, Canada
JADE FINE FOODS LTD. (Also d/b/a Arbutus Foods), BC, Canada
MING WEI SUPERMARKET LTD., AB, Canada
NOVATERRA COMPANY INC. (Also d/b/a Novaterra Produce), ON, Canada
OCEAN FRESH SEAFOOD (A d/b/a of Shanmugarajah Ravindran), ON, Canada
SHORELAND TRANSPORT INC., NB, Canada
UNITED EXPORTS AMERICAS LLC., FL, United States

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of January 31st, 2026, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

16477411 CANADA INC., ON, Canada
A. LASSONDE INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Golden Town, QC, Canada
AREL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada
ATLAS DEAL (A d/b/a of Ahmed Abousaboun), MB, Canada
BASIL KING IMPORT, BC, Canada
BLUERIDGE PRODUCE INC., BC, Canada
DAN AVILA & SONS PACKING INC., CA, United States
DIAMANT COMPANY (A d/b/a of Peter Wambui), ON, Canada
DOCK CORNER FARMS LTD., PE, Canada
DOLE DIVERSIFIED NORTH AMERICA, INC., PA, United States
DRK IMPEX INC. (Also d/b/a DRK Impex), ON, Canada
FERNDALE BERRY (A d/b/a of J & N Transport LLC), WA, United States
FLAVOR & PRODUCE IMPORT CORP., ON, Canada
FORMOSA PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
G MEX INCORPORATED, ON, Canada
GLEN A. LEA INC., PE, Canada
HONEY BEAR TREE FRUIT CO LLC, WA, United States
HUGH H. BRANCH, INC., FL, United States
IVAN BIG TREE LLC TX, United States
JAG WORLDWIDE IMPORTS (A d/b/a of 1552955 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
JL UNITED TRADING (A d/b/a of 1816101 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
LANGE COMPANIES, INC., MO, United States
LÉON DELORME LTÉE., ON, Canada
LES SERRES BIOLOGICO INC., QC, Canada
LES SERRES SAVOURA ST-ÉTIENNE INC., QC, Canada
MIG HOLDINGS INC. (dba Montrose International Group), ON, Canada
ONEEL CORPORATION LTD., ON, Canada
P.S.I. (A d/b/a of PSI Procurement Solutions International, BC, Canada
PRAIRIE PRIDE ORGANICS INC., SK, Canada
PRODUCTORA Y COMERCIALIZADORA AGRICOLA VALENCIA S.A. DE C.V., Michoacan, Mexico
RANA WHOLESALE LTD., AB, Canada
THE PRODUCE GUYS, ON, Canada

Termination with Cause

G MEX INCORPORATED was expelled from the DRC membership effective January 29, 2026, for not meeting its debts as they come due and failing to provide information requested.

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.

For questions about membership changes, contact our Help Desk.

About the DRC

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 memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

As we enter 2026, the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) celebrates a year of transformative progress—strengthening fair and ethical trade, promoting trade standards, and expanding our global influence across the fresh produce industry.

2025: A Year of Progress and Collaboration

Industry Highlights

• Advisory Role in the Grocery Code of Conduct (Code): The DRC contributed to shaping Canada’s Grocery Code of Conduct mediation process, reinforcing ethical trade practices and the integrity of fresh produce at both the retail and supplier levels. Learn about the differences between the DRC and the Code.
• Bill C-280 Advocacy: The bill, also known as the Financial Protection Act, became law in December 2024, creating a deemed trust to protect fresh fruit and vegetable farmers and suppliers. The DRC supported this legislation and continues to advise the government on its implementation. Learn more
• International Engagement: Our participation in the 23rd meeting of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV) underscored DRC’s growing global presence and influence. Learn more
• Strengthening Partnerships: The DRC collaborates with various industry organizations, including industry-government committees and the North American Trade Working Group, to benefit the sector. Participation in these activities highlights the DRC’s role as a knowledgeable and respected industry partner, which benefits our members.

DRC Milestones

2025 marked several key accomplishments:

• Transfer of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Grade Requirements: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) passed regulations allowing for the transfer of fresh fruit and vegetable (FFV) grade requirements to the DRC. This positive change will enable faster updates to meet industry needs, promote innovation, and enhance flexibility and competitiveness. Learn more
• 25th Anniversary Celebration: We honoured 25 years of supporting the fresh fruit and vegetable industry, reflecting on our enduring commitment to ensure fair and ethical trade for all our members. Learn more
• Fraud Prevention Guide: Developed in partnership with leading industry organizations, this guide equips members to combat rising fraud schemes and is available on the DRC website. Learn more
• Member Engagement: The DRC continued to prevent and resolve disputes efficiently through coaching and consultation—primarily conducted virtually or by phone. Our customized presentations have helped prevent disputes from ever occurring, and if they do, most have been resolved at an early stage. Learn more
• Industry Presence: The DRC has participated in numerous trade shows and conferences, providing valuable opportunities to connect with our members and industry personnel. In 2025, we exhibited at major events such as Fruit Logistica, CPMA, the IFPA Global Produce & Floral Show, the IFPA Mexico Conference, and Fruit Attraction. See where we’re heading next!

Looking Ahead to 2026

As 2026 begins, we are excited to announce that the DRC will attend and exhibit at a variety of national and international trade shows and conferences throughout the year. These events provide excellent opportunities for industry professionals to connect with our team, learn more about our services, and explore ways to strengthen the fresh produce community.
The DRC will continue to advocate for and provide a supportive business environment through collaboration with industry organizations, consultations and governments.

The upcoming transfer of most Canadian FF&V Grade Requirements exemplifies our ongoing commitment to excellence and member support. Keep an eye on the DRC website, where the grades will be available soon.

We look forward to strengthening and expanding our international presence across the produce supply chain and serving businesses globally. Members can use DRC’s harmonized trading standards and practices anywhere in the world. With increasing global interest and over 1700 members spread across 20 countries, the DRC offers opportunities to connect and grow your supply chain with confidence from anywhere in the world.

Thank you to our members and the fresh produce community for making 2025 remarkable. We look forward to building on these successes in 2026. For updates and resources, visit our website, follow us on social media, or connect with us at upcoming events.