Author: DRC

A friendly reminder that annual membership fees are due. Per the By-laws of the Corporation, failure to pay membership fee may result in termination of your membership, and leave you unprotected in future sales. You can pay your membership renewal fees by credit card through our Members Only Portal.

You can access Members Only Portal from our website at https://fvdrc.com/membership/member-login/ by clicking “Login Now” button. For first login only primary contacts get access to the portal. To create your password, enter your email address in Forgot Password section and click on “Send Password Reset Link”. You will instantly receive an email with a link to reset your password. You will only have to do this once.

If you have any questions regarding your outstanding annual membership fees, please contact us asap at DRC Help Desk | +1-613-234-0982 | info@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 #19404 – Parties Domiciled – United States and Canada

Facts

• Claimant sold to Respondent 880 cartons of seedless watermelon from Guatemala. According to the invoice, the product was sold FOB at $10.75USD/carton. 
• Respondent received the load in Montreal on the morning of March 16th, 2015. A federal inspection was requested and performed the same day. The inspection report revealed 0% decay, 2% scars and 25% overripe, which is considered serious damage.  
• On April 19th, 2015, Respondent supplied to Claimant an account of sale for the 880 cartons at three separate price tiers: 275 cartons at USD$13.11, 220 cartons at USD$11.48, and 385 cartons at $9.02, resulting in an aggregate sale proceed of USD$9,602.46. After deducting freight, inspection and commission charges, totalling USD$5,295.24, Respondent declared that the remitted proceed due to Claimant was USD$4,307.22, which Respondent proposed to round up to USD$4,400.00. 

 

Issues

Whether Respondent performed his duties according to the DRC rules after receiving a commodity in a deteriorated condition.

Arbitrator’s Analysis/Reasoning

This dispute centers around the following question: Did Respondent perform as per the terms of the rules of the Fruit & Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation in its handling of the sale of the watermelons it received from Claimant on March 16, 2015? There are several components to this question:

• Were DRC rules regarding inspection/rejection followed by Respondent?
• Did Respondent “make every reasonable effort to market the produce as soon as is practicable in the circumstances”?
• Did Respondent provide a true and correct account of the sales of this product, including the “proper, usual or specifically agreed upon selling charges and expenses properly incurred or agreed to in the handling thereof”?

The Arbitrator answered each of these questions in same sequence:

1. As to whether DRC rules regarding inspection/rejection were followed by Respondent, it would appear that the call for inspection was made on a timely basis, the quantity of cartons made available to the CFIA inspector was appropriate, and the outcome of the inspection was determinative. The 25% overripe determination materially exceeded the 15% maximum tolerance for condition problems under DRC rules and constituted Shipper’s clear breach of contract in its contract with Respondent. Once this breach of contract had been established, Respondent was then within its rights, with or without the agreement of Claimant, to proceed with the sale of the shipment so as to recover its incurred costs, remitting the balance of the proceeds to Claimant.

 

2. As to whether Respondent made “every reasonable effort to market the produce as soon as is practicable in the circumstances,” the only timeline evidence in the submittals by both parties is the March 25^th email from Respondent to Claimant indicating that only 200 cases remained at that date. Moving 680 cases of deteriorated cargo over the space of 7 working days would appear to fall within a fair interpretation of “every reasonable effort to market the produce as soon as is practicable”.

 

3. As to whether Respondent provided a true and correct account of the sales of this product, including the “proper, usual or specifically agreed upon selling charges and expenses properly incurred or agreed to in the handling thereof,” there are four principal elements to this question: a) average selling price; b) freight cost; c) inspections; and d) commission. Since there was no specific reference to inspection fees or commissions in the statement of claim or subsequent documents submitted by the parties to this dispute, the Arbitrator limited his consideration to sales results and transportation costs.

 

18. As to sales proceeds, there were no reports for personal watermelon from the InfoHort website for the Montreal market covering this period. On the Toronto market, for the month of March 2015, there were no InfoHort data points related to Guatemala product. Mexican mini watermelons for the month were reported to have traded in a range from CND$18.00 to CND$23.00 (USD$14.75-$18.85). Respondent reported an average weighted sales price of CND$13.31 for the 880 cases covered by this shipment. The sales price realized by Respondent is thus 74% of the lower end of the normal range reported on the Toronto market. Objectively, this result can only be classified as successful, in light of the high percentage of condition defects identified during the CFIA inspection of this product. The Claimant questioned the accuracy of the three price ranges reported by Respondent and called for a detailed sale-by-sale recapitulation of the individual sales involved in this shipment. By DRC rules, Respondent is under no obligation to provide this level of detail on the sale of a shipment which resulted in a breach of contract by Claimant. While Respondent should have provided the last date of sale in its account of sale, the Arbitrator considered this as a minor flaw. In all other elements, the Arbitrator found that Respondent complied with its responsibilities under the DRC as regards the sale of this distressed merchandise.

 

600. As to transportation costs, Claimant appeared to believe that the USD $4,600.00 cost from Florida to Montreal was excessive and had called for a copy of the actual bills between Respondent, its transportation provider, and its customs broker. Once again, this request exceeds the requirements under DRC rules, which stipulate only “the proper, usual or specifically agreed upon selling charges and expenses properly incurred or agreed to in the handling thereof.” Given the fact that Respondent was claiming damages rather than a consignment or joint account transaction, there is no requirement under DRC (or PACA) rules that Respondent should seek or obtain Claimant’s agreement to any of these cost elements. With the aforementioned exception of the date of final sale, Respondent provided all such required information. Had Claimant any evidence to support its contention that this transportation cost was excessive, it could have presented such evidence in its filing documents; in fact, no such evidence was presented. For argument’s sake, the Arbitrator consulted with the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Truck Rate Report for the week ending Tuesday, March 17, 2015. Since rates are not provided for Canadian destinations, the Arbitrator settled on the melon rate from South Florida to Boston and found the rates for the week in question ranged from USD$3,450.00 to USD$3,800.00. Adjusting this upper range by the additional 148 miles separating the Chelsea market from Respondent’s location (an increase of 10.1% for the entire journey), the Arbitrator arrived at an extrapolation of USD$4,183.37 for the transit from Florida to the Montreal market. Considering further the customs brokerage and transit charges incurred in crossing the international border, the Arbitrator sees nothing to indicate that the cost stipulated in Respondent’s account of sale is either unreasonable or excessive. While the Arbitrator would have entertained any evidence in support of a different conclusion on this matter, no such evidence was provided.

 

Arbitrator’s Decision

The handling of this transaction by Respondent — from the CFIA inspection, to the expeditious sale of the product, to the preparation of the final account of sale — was handled in conformity with the rules of the DRC. The remittance of USD$4,400.00, as outlined in its account of sale dated April 19, 2015, represents the full extent of Respondent’s liability regarding this dispute. Respondent should remit a check to Claimant in the amount of USD$4,400.00 as full and final settlement of its obligations to Claimant under this transaction. Claimant’s claim for an additional payment in the amount of USD$3,303.81 is therefore denied.

 

DRC Comments

We cannot stress enough the importance of following proper procedures to support claiming damages when a load arrives in deteriorated condition or fails to meet contract terms. The respondent followed DRC Trading Standards by giving timely notice of a problem upon arrival, requested a CFIA inspection in a timely manner, claimed damages by providing Claimant an acceptable account of sales showing reasonable sales and deducting the costs incurred as a result of the breach of contract.

The chances of having a successful defence increase significantly when DRC Trading Standards are followed.

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 )
• Reasonable Time (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.19 ss. 18)

 

Welcome New Members

From December 15, 2021 until January 15, 2022 DRC welcomed the following new members:

BELLI FOODS / BELLI DISTRIBUTION (A d/b/a of 9194-3340 Quebec Inc.)	QC	Canada
CARAVAN TRADERS INC.	ON	Canada
HAUSBECK PICKLE COMPANY (Also d/b/a Hausbeck Pickles and Peppers)	MI	United States
INTIFRESH DEL SUR SAC (También haciendo negocios como Intifresh)	Peru	Peru
KALESA DE MANILA INCORPORATED	ON	Canada
SHUBHAM SUPERMARKET LTD.	AB	Canada
SUNTRUST ENTERPRISE INC.	BC	Canada
SWEET SEASONS LLC. (Also d/b/a Sweet Seasons)	TX	United States
THE FRESH SPECIALISTS LLC.	FL	United States
TOP STAR INTERNATIONAL TRADING (A d/b/a of 10612952 Canada Limited)	ON	Canada
TRIDGE CO., LTD.	Seoul	South Korea
TROPPY FOODS LTD.	BC	Canada
VILLAMEX FARMS, LLC	TX	United States

 

DRC Membership: change in status

As of January 15, 2022, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

1974090 ONTARIO LIMITED		ON	Canada
9294-7936 QUEBEC INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Group		QC	Canada
AGORAV INC.		ON	Canada
AKIRA IMPORTS AND DISTRIBUTORS LTD. (Also d/b/a Akira Imports & Distributors)		ON	Canada
ALIMENTATION SIAM FOOD INC. (Also d/b/a Siam Food)		QC	Canada
APC FRUIT SPECIALTY CORPORATION		ON	Canada
AUSABLE PRODUCE CO. LTD.		ON	Canada
BONDUELLE CANADA INC.		ON	Canada
BOYD MACDONALD PRODUCE LTD.		PE	Canada
DFI MARKETING INC.		CA	United States
EMPACADORA GAB, INC.		TX	United States
ENDEAVOUR ENTERPRISES (A d/b/a of 902857 Ontario Inc.)		ON	Canada
FINCA AHUEHUETES S.A. DE C.V. (También haciendo negocios como Finca)		Queretaro	Mexico
FreshPoint Toronto (A Division of FreshPoint Vancouver, Ltd.)		ON	Canada
G.R. PRODUCE, INC.		TX	United States
IBEXCOMM IMPORT AND EXPORT INC.		QC	Canada
J.B.M. LOGISTICS (A d/b/a of 615315 Saskatchewan Ltd.)		SK	Canada
JASPO INC.		WA	United States
JFC INTERNATIONAL (CANADA) INC.		ON	Canada
KING LEAF CANADA (A d/b/a of 11908421 Canada Inc.)		ON	Canada
KWONG FUNG FOOD PROCESSING FACTORY LTD		BC	Canada
LES PRODUITS ET SAVEURS MÉDITERRANÉENNES (Faisant également affaire sous 9390-4688 Québec Inc.)		QC	Canada
LUENBONG TRADING (A d/b/a of 1804068 Ontario Inc.)		ON	Canada
MARK CRAIG INC.		PE	Canada
OPOKU DISTRIBUTION (A d/b/a of Patience Opoku)		QC	Canada
ORGANIC TRADE COMPANY CANADA INC.		ON	Canada
POMMES ENDERLE APPLES INC.		QC	Canada
REAL POTATOES LTD.		PE	Canada
RED BLOSSOM SALES INC.		CA	United States
SANMONT PRODUCE (A d/b/a of Sanmont Produce LLC)		TX	United States
SRI INTERNATIONAL INC.		QC	Canada
UCC INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE 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 16 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 $105 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 info@fvdrc.com or (+1) 613-234-0982 or visit us at www.fvdrc.com.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recently launched Phase 2 of public consultations on proposed changes to fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) grade standards.

This is the second of five phases, with each focusing on a specific group of FFV commodities.

Phase 2 proposes changes to grades and requirements for Asparagus, Apples, Apricots, Grapes, Peaches, Pears, Plums and Prunes as well as a new standard for Nectarines. The deadline for comments is February 11, 2022. Check out the following links to view the respective proposed changes and submit comments:

Overview: https://inspection.canada.ca/about-cfia/transparency/consultations-and-engagement/ffv/eng/1635177704225/1635177997772

Direct links to named commodities: https://inspection.canada.ca/about-cfia/transparency/consultations-and-engagement/ffv/phase-2/eng/1638986038379/1638986039223

For additional information on this DRC-led initiative, contact Anne Fowlie (afowlie@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 #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 info@fvdrc.com 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 info@fvdrc.com

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.