Author: DRC

Continuing with our series of articles summarizing past DRC arbitration decisions. We believe this will help members to better understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Regulations (R&R) apply in the event of a dispute. DRC Dispute R&R 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 DRC’s sole role is as administrator of the arbitration process; 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.

 

Case: DRC File #20042 – Parties Domiciled – Mexico and Canada

 

Facts

 

• On August 28, 2017, Claimant sold two lots of Mango Kent to Respondent: one lot contained 2340 boxes of 7’s at US$4.5 per box (US$9,945), and the other lot contained 1800 boxes of 8’s at US$4.5 per box (US$7,650) for a total of US$17,595. According to the invoice, the product was sold F.O.B. Laredo. 
• On August 29, 2017, the Respondent picked up in Laredo and delivered to its clients in Montreal on August 30, 2021.
• The Respondent informed the Claimant that the mangos received were Keith instead of Kent, which he had ordered. Therefore, his clients were returning the product.
• The Respondent offered to pay US$3.75 instead of the initial price of US$4.25. However, the Claimant advised the Respondent that he would not accept less than US$4.00. 
• Respondent made payment to the Claimant in the amount of US$15,515: US$3.75 per box for each of the 2340 boxes of 7’s and the 1800 boxes of 8’s. The Claimant accepted this payment but not as a final payment as he did not agree to a credit or price reduction.

 

Issue

 

Whether there was a material breach of the contract and did the Respondent suffer damages.

 

Arbitrator’s Analysis/Reasoning

 

Was there a breach of the agreement between the parties for the sale and purchase of Kent/Keith mangos?

 

Neither party proved their position or case, nor did either party answer the arbitrator’s questions. As such, it was not possible for the arbitrator to justify either position given conflicting evidence.  

 

Obviously, mangos were sold and delivered to buyers. While the Claimant did not admit they shipped the wrong variety, the different invoices and text exchanges indicate the wrong variety was shipped. The wrong variety is a material breach of contract. Under a material breach, a federal inspection would not be required. The Claimant did not answer the question posed by the arbitrator regarding the transaction.

 

Even though there appears to have been a material breach of contract, there is no proof of claim regarding the sale of the mangos at a loss. Had the Respondent attached an itemized account of sale for the mangos, they could have documented their loss and proven their damages.

 

In the text communications, the Claimant did offer to accept $4.00 USD per unit instead of $4.25 USD. 

 

Arbitrator’s Decision

 

The Respondent was required to reimburse the Claimant in the amount of $1,045, within 30 days from the date of this Decision and Award. However, Respondent was not required to reimburse the Claimant for the DRC arbitration fee in the amount of $600.00 USD.

 

DRC Comments

 

When filing a Statement of Claim or a Statement of Defence, make sure all statements are supported by evidence. If you are not sure how to properly document a claim, it is in your best interest to have a legal representative help you with your claim or defence.

If during the arbitration process, an arbitrator requests clarification or additional information, provide a reply including any supporting documents to the arbitrator.

For a shipper to have a successful claim, three elements must be proven: (1) that there was a breach of contract; (2) that notice of the breach of contract was provided; (3) proof of damages.

When there is no meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the contract and the documents of the transaction do not provide clarification, the parties have the burden to support their statements. In this case, emails exchanged between the parties proved to the arbitrator that the wrong variety of mangoes was shipped. However, the respondent failed twice to provide evidence to support their return to the claimant. Firstly, on their statement of defence and secondly when the arbitrator requested this information. An account of sales is the most used method to prove damages.

For more information regarding the sections of DRC Trading Standards applied to this dispute, refer to the following sections:

 

• Look Back – Ian Greig (Solutions Article December 2009)
• Receiver Duties (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.10 (2)(b)(ii))
• Acts of Acceptance (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.19 ss. 1)
• Timely Notice of a Problem (https://fvdrc.com/solutions/timely-notice-problem-2/)

We are often asked “Which is a better indicator of transit temperatures, a reefer unit download or a temperature recorder readout?”

 

The best answer is that it depends on many variables, including at shipping point, during transit and at arrival surrounding this temperature equipment. While this answer may not be satisfactory, when these two temperature tools are available, both must be given the same weight until the variables affecting temperatures are considered. Once these variables are studied, it might be easier to determine which of the two can be given more weight.

 

What are some of these variables?

• Shipping point pulp temperatures, including, did the driver pulp the product?
• Loading pattern
• Information on the BoL
• Other incompatible products on truck
• Location of the temperature recorder inside the truck
• Reefer setting; for produce, continuous mode is the recommended setting.
• Has the reefer unit been calibrated and maintained?
• Pulp temperatures upon arrival
• Where was the temperature recorder found upon arrival?
• Does recorder number match number on the BoL/manifest?
• Temperature and condition inspection report results
• Restricted inspection
• Was the requested set temperature correct? (don’t laugh, it happens!)

 

The following are some examples of circumstances that can create problems during transit:

• Loading product at a warmer temperature than the reefer unit set temperature
• Setting the reefer unit on cycle-sentry (stop/start)
• Some commodities are more susceptible to undesirable temperatures because they have higher respiration rates or are under temperature control atmosphere such as Peak Fresh or Tectrol
• Even with the best insulated trucks, outside ambient temperatures which are too cold or too hot can impact ambient temperatures inside the truck.

 

Finally, as a DRC member, all the above-noted can be irrelevant if the buyer/receiver does not follow DRC procedures to document loading and unloading and requesting a temperature and condition inspection on arrival. This can link the undesirable transit temperatures to product damage. Therefore, make sure you request a government inspection or an agreed upon private survey in a timely manner.

 

In our experience, it is the information from the reefer download and the temperature recorder coupled with the kind of problems found on arrival which collectively answer the question of “what went wrong?”

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is working to update its systems to reflect the soon to be updated Harmonized System (HS) code structure coming into effect January 1st, 2022 as a result of recent changes announced by the World Customs Organization. These codes are used at the CFIA as part of the Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) and are updated every five years. HS codes are used worldwide for the uniform classification of goods traded internationally.

Importers and exporters who use the HS codes in the Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) review the 2022 HS Code structure table  for updates.

If you have any questions, please refer to the Fact Sheet.

Welcome New Members

From November 15 until December 15, 2021 DRC welcomed the following new members:

ABOKADOS (También haciendo negocios como Afrigur del Occidente S.P.R. de R.L.de C.V.) Michoacan Mexico
ALLIED NATIONAL IMPORT AND EXPORT LTD. ON Canada
BEDFORD BASIN FARMERS MARKET LTD. NS Canada
BIOFRUITS (Faisant également affaire sous 9386-4536 Québec Inc.) QC Canada
BON COIN INC. QC Canada
CHANG LONG TRADING LTD. BC Canada
CONNIE’S AFRICAN CARIBBEAN GROCERY (A d/b/a of 9970991 Canad ON Canada
FIJI ISLAND PRODUCE (2021) LTD. BC Canada
HELLOFRESH CANADA / CHEFS PLATE (A d/b/a of GDE Grocery Deli ON Canada
INTIFRESH DEL SUR SAC (También haciendo negocios como Intifresh) Peru Peru
JJD PRODUCE, LLC CA United States
LA POMME ROUGE (A d/b/a of 9427-9734 Quebec Inc.) QC Canada
M & S PRODUCE (A d/b/a of 9433-5577 Quebec Inc.) QC Canada
OFC DISTRIBUTION INC. (Also d/b/a ALP Premium Foods) ON Canada
SHENG FENG TRADING (A d/b/a of 2382365 Ontario Inc.) ON Canada
TOOTTI FROOTTI (A d/b/a of On-A-Bun Franchising Inc.) ON Canada
TRIDGE TRADE CANADA INC. BC Canada
TROPPY FOODS LTD. BC Canada

 

DRC Membership: change in status

As of December 15, 2021, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

2465246 ONTARIO INC. Mississauga ON
AGORAV INC. Oakville ON
AKIRA IMPORTS AND DISTRIBUTORS LTD. (Also d/b/a Akira Import Scarborough ON
ALVIN & ROBIN TOPP (Also d/b/a Topp Greenhouses) Dunnville ON
AMPA TROPICALES SA DE CV (También haciendo negocios como AMP Morelia Michoacan
BAYERS LAKE EUROPEAN FARMERS MARKET LTD. Halifax NS
COHN PRODUCE (A Division of Staco Potato Distributors Ltd.) Alliston ON
FIJI ISLAND PRODUCE INC. Delta BC
KING LEAF CANADA (A d/b/a of 11908421 Canada Inc.) Barrie ON
LLOYD FREY, MINERVA FREY (Also d/b/a Lloyd & Minerva Frey) Harriston ON
MAX GROUP CORPORATION City of Industry CA
ORIENTAL FOOD CENTRE (A d/b/a of 1489168 Ontario Inc.) Mississauga ON
STRONACH & SONS INC. Toronto ON
SUN CHOICE PRODUCE (A d/b/a of 1513271 Ontario Inc.) Simcoe ON

 

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 DRC
DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. 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 excepted from the regulations. Today, DRC has members in 14 countries outside of 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 the DRC’s Operating Rules and Trading Standards, DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build the knowledge and capacity of members to avoid or resolve disputes, including education, mediation and arbitration. DRC has ability to impose sanctions and disciplinary actions towards members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, DRC has resolved claims in excess of $83 million dollars. 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.

To learn more, reach out to our Help Desk at [email protected] or (+1) 613-234-0982 or visit us at www.fvdrc.com.

DRC members are often recognized as preferred trading partners within the produce industry.

Member buyers and vendors appreciate the value of their membership for DRC’s Trading Standards, Transportation Standards, Good Arrival Guidelines and access to one-on-one professional and confidential consultation and trading assistance.  For Canadians, a DRC membership fulfills a regulatory requirement for those subject to the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.

For members outside of Canada shipping within or to North America make sure your trading partners are DRC members to minimize any risk.

Our Help Desk is a phone call away and the dispute resolution services, and process are designed to help you if and when needed.

For the recognition you deserve, you are welcome to display the DRC logo on your website and in other materials.

Contact us for additional information and graphics at [email protected]

The Covid-19 pandemic has revolutionized and augmented the number of virtual/remote hearings through the courts and various alternative dispute resolution institutions around the world. Currently, most, if not all, arbitration institutions provide virtual/remote hearing services either on their own or by outsourcing the service to a recognized virtual hearing service provider.

DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules provide for virtual/remote hearings or video conferencing to be conducted through our mediation and arbitration procedures. However, due to the technical requirements needed to conduct a virtual/remote hearing, DRC is not currently in a position to provide this service without outsourcing it.

That is why, after researching virtual/remote hearing service providers, DRC has made the decision to work with The Arbitration Place. The Arbitration Place Virtual (APV) is a secure eHearing service that includes traditional on-site proceedings, including live document display and sharing for all participants, real-time transcription and breakout rooms for private deliberations.  APV provides full technical support coordinated by Virtual Case Managers (VCMs). The VCMs are equally knowledgeable of the technologies employed and the legalities of virtual proceedings and can host individuals at their downtown Ottawa and Toronto facilities, which adhere to stringent social distancing and cleaning protocols.

Virtual/remote hearings provide for an expedited and cost-effective manner to handle a hearing. These elements go along with DRC’s  mission to offer fast, effective and economical services to our members.

DRC started working with The Arbitration Place in 2021 and our experience and the feedback from our members who have used the service has been positive. If you are familiar with the different meeting platforms available such as Webex, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Skype, etc., meeting the technical requirements to participate in a virtual hearing is not difficult at all. The Arbitration Place offers assistance and material so that anyone can be set and feel comfortable participating in a virtual/remote hearing.

If you are interested in learning more about virtual/remote hearings, do not hesitate to contact DRC’s Trading Assistance Staff or directly with The Arbitration Place at the link provided above.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has launched a public consultation on proposed changes to fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) grade standards.

The consultation will be carried out in five phases, each focusing on a specific group of FFV commodities.

Phase 1 proposes changes to grades and requirements for greenhouse cucumbers and greenhouse tomatoes, including a new standard for greenhouse mini cucumbers, and is now open for comments. Interested parties have until December 31, 2021 to review and comment on the proposed changes.

Phase 2, which includes Asparagus, Apples, Apricots, Grapes, Peaches, Pears, Plums and Prunes as well as a new standard for Nectarines is expected to open for comment in December. Later phases will continue into late-2022 and the CFIA will notify stakeholders when each one begins.

To receive a notice about each phase of the consultation, sign-up for email notifications and select Fresh Fruit and Vegetables. A message will be sent to you with updates on the consultation.

Learn more about the consultation on Proposed changes to the Canadian Grade Compendium: Volume 2 – Fresh Fruit or Vegetables and send us your comments! Input gathered through this consultation will help shape the changes to the Canadian Grade Compendium: Volume 2 – Fresh Fruit or Vegetables.

For additional information on this DRC-led initiative, contact Anne Fowlie ([email protected]).

Welcome New Members

From October 15 until November 15, 2021 DRC welcomed the following new members:

13022757 CANADA INC. ON Canada
2369820 ALBERTA LTD. AB Canada
A.M.R. CASH-AND-CARRY INC. / A.M.R. PAYEZ-EMPORTEZ INC. QC Canada
DELTA FRESH SALES LLC (Also d/b/a Delta Fresh) AZ United States
EXOTICA FRUITS & VEGETABLES (A d/b/a of 9329-1680 Quebec Inc.) QC Canada
IMPORT EXPORT ST-EUGÈNE (Faisant également affaire sous 9452-6779 Québec Inc.) QC Canada
LDP PRODUITS TROPICAUX IMPORT EXPORT INC. QC Canada
LUCKY SUPPLY INC. (Also d/b/a Wings Distributor) ON Canada
MODE AURORA INC. QC Canada
RAMIREZ DISTRIBUTION LTD. BC Canada
UVA ENTERPRISE CORP. BC Canada

DRC Membership: change in status

As of November 15, 2021, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

A PLUS GROWERS LLC. FL United States
BAHIA RANCHES, INC. CA United States
COLMEX TRADING LLC FL United States
EXPORTADORA VOLCAN FOODS LTDA. Biobío Chile
JITAI PLUS CANADA CORP. ON Canada
KENLIN TRADING INC. ON Canada
PARADISE SEASON INC. ON Canada
RAMIREZ IMPORTS LTD. BC Canada
SIMPLY NATURAL HARVEST, LLC (Also d/b/a Simply Natural / Simply Natural Harvest) TX United States
SRT TRADING LTD. BC Canada
UYICH KAAN PRODUCE, LLC (Also d/b/a Uyich Kaan Produce) WA United States
XFRESH PRODUCE LTD. ON Canada

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 DRC
DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. 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 excepted from the regulations. Today, DRC has members in 14 countries outside of 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 the DRC’s Operating Rules and Trading Standards, DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build the knowledge and capacity of members to avoid or resolve disputes, including education, mediation and arbitration. DRC has ability to impose sanctions and disciplinary actions towards members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, DRC has resolved claims in excess of $83 million dollars. 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.

To learn more, reach out to our Help Desk at [email protected] or (+1) 613-234-0982 or visit us at www.fvdrc.com.

Welcome New Members

From September 15 until October 15, 2021 DRC welcomed the following new members:

13383831 CANADA INC.	ON	Canada
CONAGRA BRANDS CANADA INC.	ON	Canada
DELTA FRESH SALES LLC (Also d/b/a Delta Fresh)	AZ	United States
HIEP HOA ASIAN FOOD MARKET (A d/b/a of 2247538 Alberta Ltd.)	AB	Canada
HOLA PRODUCE INC.	BC	Canada
LONGFE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMPANY OF CANADA LIMITED	ON	Canada
MAPLE FRESH PRODUCE WHOLESALE (A d/b/a of Arshdeep Sharma)	AB	Canada
RICE BROS. TRUCKING LTD.	AB	Canada
TRIPOD SMART ENTERPRISES LTD.	BC	Canada
ZOE FOOD AND ORGANICS (A d/b/a of Zoe Organic Foods and Inorganic Corporation)	ON	Canada

 

DRC Membership: change in status

As of October 15, 2021, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

 

C K JESPERSEN FARMS INC. (Also d/b/a Spruce Grove SOD)	AB	Canada
CONNIE’S AFRICAN CARIBBEAN GROCERY (A d/b/a of 9970991 Canada Inc.)	ON	Canada
DB TRADING SERVICES INC. / SERVICES COMMERCIAUX DB INC.	QC	Canada
EVERYTHING PRODUCE INC.	BC	Canada
LARA FOOD DISTRIBUTION INC.	ON	Canada
P.A.L. TRADING INTERNATIONAL INC.	ON	Canada
PERSIS LAND PRODUCTS INC. (Also d/b/a Persis Land Products)	ON	Canada
TEMAK INC.	ON	Canada
THE SIX PRODUCE COMPANY INC.	ON	Canada
TOROMANO INC.	ON	Canada

 

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 DRC

DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. 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 excepted from the regulations. Today, DRC has members in 14 countries outside of 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 the DRC’s Operating Rules and Trading Standards, DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build the knowledge and capacity of members to avoid or resolve disputes, including education, mediation and arbitration. DRC has ability to impose sanctions and disciplinary actions towards members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, DRC has resolved claims in excess of $83 million dollars. 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.

To learn more, reach out to our Help Desk at [email protected] or (+1) 613-234-0982 or visit us at www.fvdrc.com.

Continuing with our series of articles summarizing past DRC arbitration decisions. We believe this will help members to better understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Regulations (R&R) apply in the event of a dispute. DRC Dispute R&R 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 DRC’s sole role is as administrator of the arbitration process; 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.

Case: DRC File #20083 – Parties Domiciled – Canada

Facts

• Between August 2017 – September 2017 the Respondent, and the Claimant, had dealings whereby the Claimant sold squash, peppers, and tomatoes to the Respondent. 
• The dealings that led up to the orders were mostly between “Y”, an employee of the Respondent, and “X”, a Claimant employee. “Z”, an employee of the Respondent also had, but to a much lesser extent, some communications with “X.” Both “Y” and “X” had had dealt together in the past.  
• There was a total of 16 invoices that were the subject matter of this dispute.  

Issue

Whether the prices and credits for each transaction were discussed and agreed between the parties.

Arbitrator’s Analysis/Reasoning

QUESTION 1: What was the agreement between the parties with respect to pricing?

The Arbitrator, in his analysis, found that, based upon the evidence presented by the parties, the following matters were not in dispute:

1. There were phone discussions between “Y” and “X” which led to the Claimant delivering produce, especially squash, peppers, and tomatoes, to the Respondent.
2. The Claimant would issue an invoice for the produce delivered on the day of shipping.
3. The Respondent issued short payments for the produce.
4. The Respondent’s alleged agreement that the costs of the produce shipped by the Claimant would be determined by USA market after the fact was not indicated in writing.

Based upon the above set of facts, the Arbitrator determined if any amounts were owed to the Claimant by the Respondent.

With respect to the reason for the “short payments,” the Respondent maintained that they were the result of credits owing based on the USA market. There was very little evidence demonstrating what the eventual USA market prices were. The Respondent offered no evidence to demonstrate the produce received from the Claimant was eventually distributed. Based on the evidence adduced (cited), the Arbitrator was unable to determine whether the Respondent resold the produce received from the Claimant at a profit, loss, or cost.   

The Claimant denied the existence of any agreement where the prices for the produce were to be determined at a later date, dependent on the USA market, as alleged by the Respondent.  According to the Claimant, the Respondent pursued them for the produce, not the other way around. The Claimant maintained that the Respondent received what they ordered and should therefore have to pay the invoices.

With respect to pricing, in the Arbitrator’s point of view, it was incumbent on the Respondent to adduce (cite) evidence showing that the parties had agreed that the prices were to be governed by the USA market. None was put forward. 

With respect to alleged quality issues, the evidence does not demonstrate that any alleged quality issue for which a credit was not provided by the Claimant was brought to the attention of the Claimant in a timely fashion. The Arbitrator also found that the Respondent did not engage the services of a third party quality inspection, such as a CFIA inspection, to report on any quality issue. 

The Arbitrator accepted that the invoices were the best indicator of the price discussed and agreed between the parties at the time the orders were placed.

QUESTION 2: Who should pay for the costs of the arbitration?

Article 53 of DRC’s Operating Rules – Part 6 – Mediation & Arbitration Rules provides that the Arbitrator shall determine liability for costs and that the Arbitrator may apportion costs between the parties. It further provides that in awarding costs, the Arbitrator shall take into account the purpose of achieving a just, speedy and economical determination of the proceeding on its merits. Given the Claimant’s overall success, the Arbitrator ordered that the Respondent pay the Claimant the sum of US$6,220.65 as costs of the arbitration. 

Arbitrator’s Decision

The Respondent is to pay the Claimant the sum of CND$72,775.50 in damages, plus US$6,200.65 filing fee, within 30 days from the date of this Decision and Award.

DRC Comments

There are several points in this decision that DRC members must take into consideration in their transactions:   

• As a receiver/buyer, if you have received produce in deteriorated condition, you must request a federal inspection unless otherwise agreed. 
• Timely notice of a problem is essential when claiming damages.
• Properly documenting the terms of the transactions is essential and helps prevent misunderstandings.

For more information regarding the sections of DRC Trading Standards applied to this dispute, refer to the following sections:

DRC Trading Standards:

• Receiver Duties (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.10 (2)(b)(ii))
• DRC Good Inspection Guidelines (https://fvdrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/good_inspection_guidelines.pdf )
• Acts of acceptance (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.19 ss. 1)
• Reasonable Time (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.19 ss. 18)