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 #19478 – Parties Domiciled – United States and Canada

Facts

• The Claimant shipped to the Respondent 540 boxes of Grapes on July 6, 2015. According to the invoice, the product was sold F.O.B. at $9.00/box. 
• The Respondent received the shipment in Canada on July 10, 2015, and a private inspection was performed. The private inspection revealed  2% decay, 13% brown discoloration, 4% translucent and discoloured, 3% wet and sticky, 5% shattered, and pulp temperature ranging from 33.7F(.95C) to 34.5F(1.3C).
• On July 14, 2015, Claimant instructed Respondent to secure and provide a CFIA inspection, which was never conducted. The Claimant also requested a copy of the temperature recording tape, which was not provided.
• The Respondent supplied an account of sale and remitted the proceeds of USD$7,472.70 after a deduction of USD$13,123.80 from the original invoice value of USD$20,596.50.

Issues

• Whether the Respondent failed to adequately inform Claimant regarding the problem of the product on arrival.
• Whether the Respondent failed to properly document what happened to the temperature recorder. 
• Whether there was an agreement between the parties to use an independent private commercial inspection service.

Arbitrator’s Analysis/Reasoning

The grapes arrived on Friday, July 10, 2105. The first communication from Respondent to advise Claimant there was a problem was not until Sunday, July 12, when they faxed a copy of the private inspection to Claimant. This left two days since arrival before a problem was reported. Had Respondent advised Claimant the day of arrival that the product was showing trouble and a private inspection had been requested, Claimant could have reacted and responded as they deemed necessary.

When Respondent sent the email on July 12, 2015 (Sunday) with the results of a private inspection, an “automatic out of office reply” was sent back to Respondent by Claimant’s recipient which indicated that person would be out of the office until July 20, 2015, and if anything is needed, please call the office at the phone number indicated. Furthermore, a formal email response was sent on July 13, 2015 (Monday) by Claimant reiterating to call the office as the recipient of the email was out.

Claimant’s invoice indicates that the grapes were sold FOB. The risk of loss would have passed to Respondent once Claimant loaded the product onto the truck. Respondent is therefore responsible for notifying the supplier of the problem and failed to do so in a timely manner.

It is clear from both parties that Claimant requested a CFIA inspection on July 14, 2015, which was never requested or performed by Respondent. Respondent communicated problems on a shipment by means of email and received a response that would clearly indicate their communications to Claimant had failed to be delivered accordingly.

Respondent claims that Claimant has accepted private inspections in the past and therefore should apply in this case. However, it is unclear as to there being any “past experiences” whereby Claimant accepts inspections performed by any independent inspection bodies. The DRC Good Inspection Guidelines are precise and very clear as private inspections are not typically given the same weight as government inspections.

While there is no evidence offered to prove or disprove temperatures in transit were carried out as instructed, Respondent has failed to provide the temperature recording tape to substantiate what the in-transit temperatures were, as requested by Claimant.

Arbitrator’s Decision

Respondent failed to prove that time and temperature while in transit were in good order. Respondent was fully instructed by Claimant to call the office in both email communications and did not do so on a timely basis. Respondent failed to request a CFIA inspection. Therefore, Claimant is owed the balance of its invoice price, USD$14,117.52 funds to be paid by Respondent no later than thirty days from the date of this decision.

DRC Comments

FOB receivers/buyers, have the burden to prove time and temperature while in transit are acceptable, specifically when a temperature recorder is placed on the load at shipping point and the BOL includes it. If a BOL includes a temperature recorder and the driver signs for it, the carrier is obligated to deliver that item along with the product. When a temperature recorder is lost, the receiver must document its absence and let the carrier know of a potential issue.

Timely notice of a problem is essential when claiming damages. In this case, the receiver waited two days after the product arrived to notify the claimant of a problem, as well as with a private inspection. While the Respondent argued that private inspections have been used in the past and therefore a previous course of dealing had been established, there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate this. Unless otherwise agreed, DRC members must request a government inspection prior to requesting a private inspection service. Alternative inspections services must be discussed, understood, and agreed, and preferably in writing.    

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

DRC Trading Standards:

• DRC Good Inspection Guidelines (https://fvdrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/good_inspection_guidelines.pdf )
• O.B (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s. 20 ss. 5)
• Temperature Recording Devices (DRC Transportation Standards s. 12 ss. 2)
• Reasonable Time (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.19 ss. 18)
• Receiver Duties (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.10 (2)(b)(ii))

Our Trading Assistance Staff continue to see cases where North American buyers who import fresh produce from offshore growers or sellers, struggle understanding their responsibilities under the perceived “agreed” INCOTERMS®.

North American buyers and sellers of fresh fruits and vegetables have adopted two main trade terms for their transactions within North America, FOB and DELIVERED (FOB Destination), which are used mostly for inland transportation. While this has worked fairly well in North America, we have noticed that when buying product from Europe, Asia, South Africa, South America or other parts of the world, important details regarding risk, cost, and clearance are not properly discussed or understood depending on the INCOTERMS® agreed.

We cannot stress enough the importance of having better knowledge of the INCOTERMS® within your company in the buy/sell department or logistic department if exists. One common mistake that continues to cross our desk is when a North American buyer requests the offshore grower/shipper to have the product “delivered” to them at the named port. The North American buyer assumes that the offshore grower/shipper will take care of all the details to deliver the product at the named destination but forgets to discuss the risk and/or customs clearance. Without discussing these elements, the grower/shipper can use the CFR or CIF INCOTERMS® and complied with the buyer’s request. This lack of communication normally creates a dispute when a shipping line needs to be claimed for damages or when is time to absorb customs clearance costs.

In the previous example, the North American company could have used a more appropriate term such as DAP, DPU, or DDP, which automatically would have transferred the risk of transit to the grower/shipper, as well as establish responsibility for customs clearance cost.

We strongly suggest DRC members visit the International Chamber of Commerce website and become familiar with the INCOTERMS®. You will be able to download for free two documents: Free Incoterms 2020 Introduction and a wallchart.

It is well known that transportation and related matters are complex and become even more so when the cargo is fresh fruits and vegetables.

Even before factoring in cargo that is highly perishable and for human consumption, these complexities range from domestic Hours of Service regulations for transport drivers to a ship captain’s right to jettison that cargo during a storm to save his ship and crew under maritime law.

As many of you may know firsthand, buying and selling produce includes consideration of many factors, such as food safety, grade standards, labeling, phytosanitary issues and requirements as well as a myriad of domestic and foreign permits.  It should not be surprising that things do not always go smoothly!

The Transportation Standards can help level the playing-field when well meaning intentions result in unintentional complications. The produce industry is aware of this and has developed best practices and protocols, many of which are reflected in these standards.

The current pandemic has upset many protocols. For example, increasingly, drivers are often restricted from actively observing the loading process and taking pulp temperatures. There are sound reasons to distance the driver from others, however, the driver is then being prevented from performing a key responsibility. The Transportation Standards indicate that a bill of lading should note when the driver could not take pulp temps of the product and state on BOL as “the shipper’s temperature declaration.” These standards also state that the driver must object and inform his customer of the situation. 

Failure to document temperatures at shipping point leaves both shipper and carrier equally exposed to blame when temperature issues arise at destination. 

Another frequent area of contention arises when the shipper’s temperature instructions conflict with the buyer’s instruction to the carrier. This may be due to a mixed manifest, ripening considerations or a number of other reasons. These standards indicate it is the shipper’s duty to contact the buyer and resolve any difference between shipper and buyer temperature instruction to the carrier. The carrier should never be responsible for making transit temperature decisions. 

The Transportation Standards reflect the industry norms, expectations, and in many circumstances – common sense. With regard to driver and pulp temperatures, it is simply not reasonable for one party to prevent drivers from taking pulp temperatures and the other party holding the driver responsible for not taking the pulp temperatures.  Yes, the driver has responsibility for not objecting, but it is not a sole responsibility.  

The Warranty of Suitable Shipping Condition (Good Arrival) requires the shipper to load the carrier in such a way as it can make good arrival. An FOB shipper who cannot demonstrate temperature information at shipping point may find themselves with liability for condition issues on arrival at destination. 

If you have a question about the Transportation Standards, please reach out to us. Remember, the Standards are written as a guide for a global audience who are doing business with DRC members. 

Welcome New Members

From April 15 until May 17, 2021, DRC welcomed the following new members:

A1 IMPORTS INC.	QC	Canada
AGROINDUSTRIAL SAN GERMAN SPA (También haciendo negocios como San German SPA)	Elqui	Chile
ALIMSUR INC.	QC	Canada
ANYE PRODUCE INC.	CA	United States
BENITO PRODUCE CORP.	ON	Canada
BOUCHERIE EL IHCÈNE	QC	Canada
CITRUS CONNECTION (A d/b/a of 1884430 Ontario Inc.)	ON	Canada
COMMERCE O’MALLEY QUÉBEC (Faisant également affaire sous Coulibaly Firmin)	QC	Canada
DESIGNITY EXPRESS INC. (Also d/b/a South Asian Food Essentia	ON	Canada
EL TORREON EXPORT LIMITADA	Punilla	Chile
FRESHSTONE BRANDS INC.	ON	Canada
LINKGLOBAL FOOD INC.	ON	Canada
MANGOLICIOUS BY MM (A d/b/a of Mona Mehta)	ON	Canada
MARITIME FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PACKERS INC.	ON	Canada
NATURAL FOREST, INC	Florida	United States
PROSPERA PRODUCE LTD.	BC	Canada
SOCRITIQUE TECHNOLOGIES INC.	ON	Canada
SUN RICH FOODS CANADA INC. (Also d/b/a Sun Rich)	BC	Canada
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCE URBAN DELIVERY INC. (Also d/b/a Spud.ca)	BC	Canada
THE GREENGEN INCORPORATED	ON	Canada
VARSTAR ALLIANCE INC.	MI	United States
VIVO DE CAMPO INC.	ON	Canada
ZYTHAS DYNAMIC INC.	AB	Canada

 

DRC Membership: change in status

As of May 17,2021, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

2478339 ONTARIO INC	ON	Canada
2755281 ONTARIO INC.	ON	Canada
9382-9729 QUEBEC INC.	QC	Canada
AGRICOLA LA VENTA S.A.  (También haciendo negocios como Agricola La Venta)	Lima	Peru
AGRICOLA TEJAS VERDES LIMITADA		Chile
AGROINVERSIONES VALLE Y PAMPA S.A.	Lima	Peru
ALWAYS GREEN CORPORATION	CA	United States
BAUZA EXPORT LTDA	Santiago	Chile
BRANDPORT TRADING INTERNATIONAL INC. (Also d/b/a Brandport)	QC	Canada
BUDA JUICE CANADA (A d/b/a of 2469447 Ontario Limited)	ON	Canada
CHENFIELD LIMITED	Kowloon	Hong Kong
CHINESE UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES INC.	MB	Canada
COMERCIAL GREENVIC S.A.	Metropolitana	Chile
FEDAL CONSULTING CORP.	AB	Canada
GEORGE DESLAURIERS (1976) INC.	QC	Canada
GRANATIONAL INC.	ON	Canada
HAKIM ENTERPRISES (A d/b/a of Thabit Hakim Andrawus)	ON	Canada
LB INTERNATIONAL TRADING IMPORT/EXPORT INC.	QC	Canada
LES MARCHANDS DUFRAIS (Faisant également affaire sous 9124-3105 Quebec Inc.)	QC	Canada
LT FARM, INC.	CA	United States
MAKOLA TROPICAL FOODS	ON	Canada
MAYRAND LIMITÉE (Faisant également affaire sous Resto Dépot Mayrand)	QC	Canada
MUSANGKING TRADE COMPANY LIMITED	ON	Canada
NATIONAL COLD CHAIN INC.	ON	Canada
NFI IPD, LLC (Also d/b/a NFI Canada)	ON	Canada
PAPALOTE FRESH LLC	TX	United States
PRODUCTOS AGROPECUARIOS SAN CARLOS S.P.R. de R.L. (También haciendo negocios como San Carlos)	Nayarit	Mexico
READY PAC PRODUCE, INC.	CA	United States
S & A IMPORT AND EXPORT, SRL		Dominican Republic
SAN DIEGO FARMS LLC (Also d/b/a Fresh Origins)	CA	United States
SANDEL FOODS INC.	BC	Canada
SIMILIEN PRODUITS FRAIS INC.	QC	Canada
SLIM PROFESSIONNELS SERVICES INC.	QC	Canada
SUNFLOWER KITCHEN INC.	ON	Canada
SUTHA IMPORTS & EXPORTS LTD.	ON	Canada
TAYLOR & FULTON PACKING, LLC	FL	United States
TJPEPPERS LTD.	ON	Canada
TOP STAR INTERNATIONAL TRADING (A d/b/a of 10612952 Canada Limited)	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 info@fvdrc.com or (+1) 613-234-0982 or visit us at www.fvdrc.com.

 

This is the third in a series of articles summarizing past DRC arbitration decisions. We believe this will help members to better understand how the DRC Dispute Rules (R&R) and Regulations 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 #10954 – Parties Domiciled – USA and Canada

Facts

• The Claimant shipped to the Respondent 4032 boxes of size 12 Kent variety mangoes on August 7, 2001. According to the invoice, the product was sold at $2.60/box F.O.B. The Respondent received the shipment in Canada either late on August 11, 2001 or in the early hours of August 12, 2001.
• A CFIA inspection was requested on Monday, August 13, 2001 and was performed the following morning on August 14, 2001. Respondent alleges that the mangoes failed to make good arrival and sold the mangos for the Claimant’s account which returned approximately $.40 per box to the Claimant.
• On August 14, 2001, Claimant sent a letter to Respondent’s broker advising that they would not allow the mangoes to be sold for their account. Thereafter, Respondent wrote to the broker asking for instructions on how to handle the load.
• Claimant made numerous requests to the Respondent to be provided with the CFIA inspection. This inspection was not provided to the Claimant until February 12, 2002.
• Claimant agreed to allow a $1.00 per box adjustment due to quality problems, and now seeks payment of $4,838.40.

Issue

Whether the Respondent failed to provide in a timely manner a copy of the inspection certificate to the Claimant.

Arbitrator’s Analysis/Reasoning

The arbitrator found that Respondent failed to provide, in a timely manner, a copy of the inspection certificate to Claimant herein in violation of Section 10 (2)(b)(ii) of the Trading Standards which require a copy of the inspection certificate to be provided to the shipper within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt by the Respondent. Therefore, the arbitrator found that Respondent violated its duties under the DRC Trading Standards.

Additionally, Respondent raised as an issue as to whether the Notice of Dispute herein was properly filed because a representative of the DRC requested such notice be filed by November 13, 2001 and it was not filed until November 30, 2001. The Arbitrator found that, pursuant to Rule 4 of the DRC Dispute Resolution Rules, the Claimant filed the Notice of Dispute within the nine (9) month limitation period.

Arbitrator’s Decision

The Respondent failed to provide in a timely manner a copy of the inspection certificate to Claimant, therefore, Claimant is owed the invoice price of $10,506.70 less payment in the amount of $1,636.30, less a credit in the amount of $4,032.00, for a total invoice price owed of $4,838.30 plus commencement fees of $525.00 plus interest of 9.5% (U.S. prime rate plus 1%) from the ten (10) days following receipt of the goods by Respondent herein or August 22, 2001, through the date of this decision, or $273.48 for a total of $5,636.88 funds to be paid by the Respondent to Claimant no later than thirty days from the date of this decision.

DRC Comments

As a receiver/buyer, failing to provide the supporting documents of a claim in a timely manner, can result an unsuccessful claim. In this case, the respondent appears to have given timely notice of a problem upon arrival, requested a CFIA inspection in a timely manner, and informed the shipper they would handle the product for the shipper’s account. The only responsibility the receiver failed to meet was not providing the CFIA inspection in a timely manner. However, this is a very important step in the process of making a claim. The results of the CFIA inspection allow the shipper to determine if the product met or failed contract terms or DRC Good Arrival Guidelines. A shipper who does not receive a copy of an inspection report in a timely manner has not been provided with sufficient evidence that the product arrived in deteriorated condition. This often compromises the shipper’s ability to pass any claim on to his supplier, insurance, freight provider or others who may have contributed to a claim. 

DRC members have 9 months from the date the dispute arose or when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence to file their Notice of Dispute. We are not sure why the respondent was under the impression that the Notice of Dispute should have been submitted on or before November 13, 2001 but if the product was received on August 12, 2001, and we start counting from this date, the claimant would have had until May 12, 2002 to file their notice of dispute.

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))
• Reasonable Time (Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.19 ss. 18)
• Limitation of Claims (Operating Rules – Dispute Resolution Rules Part 1 Art. 4

Over the last few months DRC has experienced a surge of new members. This is positive and demonstrates that, even during these challenging times, the entrepreneurial spirit remains strong.

We are receiving all types of applications, which include applicants with little experience in the produce industry or lack of knowledge of rules and regulations that apply to produce transactions. We want to assure those who are completely new to the industry that DRC is more than just a regulatory requirement for Canadians, we are a key resource for information with tools to help businesses succeed in a tough but extremely rewarding industry. Before taking on your first fresh produce import make sure you can answer the following basic questions:

• Can the product enter Canada? You should be visiting the Automated Import Reference System to find out.
• What are the payment terms and contracted shipping terms such as INCOTERMS?  Make sure both parties understand their rights, responsibilities and risks of using these terms.
• How do I clear Canadian customs and have the product released to me? You may want to have a Custom Broker to help you with this process. Visit Canada Border Services Agency for a list of licensed custom brokers.
• What do I do if my Canadian buyer does not want my product? Understand the process of a claim or a rejection by reviewing DRC’s Trading Standards.
• What if my product arrives with damage? A request for a government inspection should be the first action.

These are the types of questions we receive daily at DRC and we have professional and dedicated staff available to assist you. So, if you need help with some of these basic questions or any others, please call or email us and we will get you the answers you need with total confidentiality.

Just as the DRC Trading Standards set out the rights and responsibilities of buyers, brokers and sellers of fresh produce, the DRC Transportation Standards set out the fresh produce specific rights and responsibilities of trucks, transportation intermediaries, shippers, and receivers.

For some time, the DRC Transportation Standards have been viewed as more of a “suggestion” than as a vital part of product movement along the supply chain. Those days are over.  Food Safety and Preventative Control Plans (PCP) have focused attention on the supply chain, including the loading and unloading of produce.

Section 7 addresses loading the conveyance.  For years the driver and the shipper had responsibilities for loading the conveyance. Documentation of pulp temperatures, reefer set points and condition of the conveyance should now be part of a shipper’s PCP.

Similarly, Section 9 addresses the documentation of temperatures and the condition of the load.  These requirements should also be reflected in the receiver’s PCP.  That plan should include procedures to address and correct those issues.

Placing seals or locks on trailer doors is nothing new and is discussed in Section 7.   Not that many years ago a seal’s primary use was protecting against theft, or that other unapproved cargo was not placed on board. Breaking that seal without authorization could result in rejection and give rise to contamination concerns. Today, breaking a seal may raise Food Safety concerns which could lead to a dispute.

DRC’s Transportation Standards are designed to be the default standards between members, and they are compatible with today’s business practices.  Parties are free to agree on other transportation terms and we are cognisant that sovereign laws may come into effect in international transactions. When making other arrangements be prepared for DRC to ask if the terms were “DUA” (discussed, understood, and agreed).

Welcome New Members

From March 15 until April 15, 2021, DRC welcomed the following new members:

12618109 CANADA INC.	AB	Canada
BDF INTERNATIONAL LTD.	BC	Canada
CITY PRODUCE	ON	Canada
CSM FRESH IMPORTS INC. (Also d/b/a CSM Fresh)	ON	Canada
DALEY FARM FRESH PRODUCE INC. (Also d/b/a Daley’s Trucking)	ON	Canada
EPSILON-IT EPSILON-INTEGRA-TRADE LTD. (Also d/b/a Epsilon In	BC	Canada
ESS ESS DISTRIBUTORS INC.	ON	Canada
EVERFRESH GREENHOUSE (A d/b/a of 1269461 Ontario Inc.)	ON	Canada
EXOCAN GROUP INC..	QC	Canada
GREATRATE FOODS LTD.	BC	Canada
GUJARAT FOODS AND SPICES INC.	ON	Canada
IMPORTATION GLNA INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Audall	QC	Canada
JUS LOOP INC. (Faisant également affaire sous LOOP Mission)	QC	Canada
LITAI CANADA TRADING LTD.	ON	Canada
LOKESH JAIN ENTERPRISE (A d/b/a of Lokesh Jain)	ON	Canada
MAMA’S GREENHOUSE (A d/b/a of 963358 Ltd.)	AB	Canada
MARTINEZ & SONS PRODUCE INC.	CA	United States
MATOOKE SHOP EAST AFRICAN FRESH FOODS INC.	ON	Canada
NAVS GROCERY ( A d/b/a of 2726265 Ontario Inc.)	ON	Canada
NOURIMPEX (A d/b/a of 9347-9426 Quebec Inc.)	QC	Canada

 

DRC Membership: change in status

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

A & Z TRUCKING INC.	NY	United States
A2Z IMPORT “N” EXPORT CANADA INC.	ON	Canada
ABIDJAN SERVICES ALIMENTAIRES INC.	QC	Canada
AFRICAN CHOICE MARKET LTD.	AB	Canada
ALBERT’S ORGANICS, INC.	NJ	United States
ALPINE FRESH, INC.	FL	United States
APACHE PRODUCE IMPORTS LLC	AZ	United States
BRAD FOOTE & SON PRODUCE LIMITED (Also d/b/a Footes Farm Mar	NS	Canada
CLEAR COAST ALLIANCE LTD.	BC	Canada
DOUBLE STAR FARMS INC.	CA	United States
FILLMORE-PIRU CITRUS ASSOCIATION	CA	United States
FRESHPACK OKANAGAN FRUIT LTD.	BC	Canada
HA IMPEX INC	AB	Canada
HARI AGRO PRODUCTS CANADA (A d/b/a of Hari Prasath Udayakuma	BC	Canada
J.B.M. ENTERPRISES LTD.	BC	Canada
LES ALIMENTS KOUBA INC.	QC	Canada
NATURE BLUE ENTERPRISES INC.	BC	Canada
NEW ERA PRODUCE LLC	FL	United States
PACIFIC RIM INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE INC.	BC	Canada
SYSCO NASYS (A Division of Sysco Canada, Inc.)	NB	Canada
THREE DOLPHINS WHOLESALE LTD.	BC	Canada
TIGERGOOD MARKETS LTD.	BC	Canada
VICTORY MEAT MARKETS YAKIMA FRESH, LLC	NB WA	Canada United States

 

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.

Did you know that while most of the information posted on DRC Member Portal is reserved for members only, you don’t have to be a member to use some of the features the portal has to offer?

To start you’ll need to go to Member Login section and register a new account. Once logged in, as a non-member, you will have basic access to the portal where you will be able to:

• Have limited access to the membership directory where you can search for companies by location and type of business
• Verify if the company is either a DRC active or inactive member
• Apply for a full membership
• Send an inquiry for DRC Trading Assistance or any other help

We are encouraging everyone to visit our redesigned website and discover the refreshed Member Portal as a valuable resource for the produce industry.