Author: DRC

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has developed a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.

The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is to administer the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

ABSTRACT

The arbitration decision addresses a dispute between parties from the United States and Canada. The dispute emerged when the Respondent received a product in deteriorated condition, conducted a restricted inspection, and submitted an account of sales indicating a return that the Claimant did not accept.

The arbitrator found that there was insufficient evidence to support the Respondent’s full claim, but allowed damages for the product that was inspected according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspection results.

This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.

CASE: DRC File #19197 – Parties Domiciled – United States and Canada

SUMMARY OF FACTS

On or about April 19, 2013, the Claimant sold 910 cartons of romaine lettuce at a price of US$6.45 per carton and 168 cartons of green leaf lettuce at US$5.45 per carton. The total invoice amount (Inv. 311545) was US$6,808.60, which included the cost of a temperature recorder.

Upon arrival on April 23, 2013, the Respondent requested a federal inspection for the romaine. The following morning, a CFIA inspection was conducted on 500 of the 910 cartons shipped. The inspection revealed 22% marginal browning and 3% tip burn. A CFIA inspection certificate was subsequently faxed to the Claimant.

The Respondent claimed that to minimize their losses, they initially distributed some of the romaine to their customers. However, due to the deteriorated condition of the product, it was returned. Ultimately, the Respondent managed to sell 747 cartons at varying prices, with the average price per box being CA$12.50. The Respondent provided the Claimant with an account of sales, indicating a net loss of CA$2,103.80.

The Respondent acknowledged owing the Claimant US$950.60 for the Green Leaf 24’s, as well as an additional US$23.50 for the temperature recorder, which reduced the net loss to US$1,164.80.

Both parties submitted the “Claim Review Report,” prepared by the Claimant. Notably, the Claimant agreed to reduce the price of the 910 cartons from US$6.45 to US$5.17, resulting in a total deduction of US$1,164.80 on invoice 311545.

This document included the following statement: “(tpolk 09/07/2013 15:27:40): The product arrived with 3% edge burn and 22% marginal darkening. The customer handled it discreetly. A lower payment is accepted.” The Respondent argued that this document was interpreted as an admission by the Claimant that all the 24’s romaine lettuce arrived with significant quality issues, which authorized the Respondent to handle the product accordingly. In contrast, the Claimant argued that, based on the CFIA inspection certificate’s results, the Respondent was notified that full payment for this FOB sale was expected.

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING

It is not in dispute that the product was shipped from California and arrived in Montreal, nor the amount of the product.

Once the product arrived and the Respondent noticed a problem with the Romaine, they stamped the BOL with RECEIVED UNDER PROTEST and requested a CFIA inspection. These were the correct procedures under the circumstances.

Although no copies of faxes or emails were produced, once the inspection was completed, according to the Respondent, he notified the Claimant of the results as he was required to do so. The Claimant does not dispute that he received this notification.

However, when the Inspector arrived, only 500 cartons, by actual count, out of 910 received were available for inspection. The Respondent never gives a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy.

He provides substantial evidence that he tried to sell 419 cartons, but gives no indication whether this was before or after the inspection.

Some of it was most definitely after the inspection, as 419 cartons were deducted from the original 910, leaving 491. Therefore, if 500 were inspected at least 9 cartons were sent out after the inspection took place.

The Claimant is correct in that the percentages of defects as listed on the Inspection certificate cannot be considered as representative of the entire shipment.

It is well established in the produce industry and through numerous DRC, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and court decisions that any portion of a commercial shipment that is not inspected shall be averaged into the damage calculations as having zero defects. This means that the shipment as a whole would have made good delivery.

The Respondent acted correctly in attempting to sell the product as soon as possible, as per DRC Trading Standards, Section 10, 2b(iii). However, he should have had the entire shipment inspected first. The arbitrator will acknowledge that it is at times acceptable for a buyer to sell a percentage of a load (usually no more than 25%) prior to inspection when that sale serves to minimize the loss. However, in this case, there is no evidence provided as to the date/time that the sales were attempted and no evidence that they occurred before or after the inspection.

In this case, the sales did not serve to minimize the loss. Also, he did not provide a representative sample of the load. The buyer must bear the consequences of his decision.

The Respondent apparently did dispose of the product and states that the receipts did not cover the costs of transportation, customs, inspection fee, etc., and he suffered a net loss. The amount of his loss is recorded in his Account of Sales as US$2,103.64.

How the Respondent disposed of the Product is not disclosed. In the Statement of Defence paragraph 5(d), it claims that there is an “invoice of an integrated waste management company related to the dumping.” No such invoice has been made available to the arbitrator. If the Respondent did dump the product, it should have complied with the DRC Trading Standards, Section 10, 2b(iv), which states that a dump certificate should have been obtained, and a copy forwarded to the Claimant.

Also, in its own Account of Sales, the Respondent shows $0.00 for the Dumping fee.

Therefore, in the absence of such documentation, the Arbitrator must assume that the Respondent did sell the product. The June 11, 2013, Respondent’s Account of Sales sent to the attention of Mr. Y at the Claimants shows an income of US$6,396.36.

Much of the Respondent’s Statement of Defence is given over to explanations of how he has deducted this loss from payments already owing to the Claimants for invoice 310061 shipped about one month previously and (other than a TempTale) for an entirely different product.

For one party to deny payment on another invoice is highly improper, as this is actually changing a contract. This can only be done when both parties agree to the change. The Claimant has not made mention of this in either of its submissions and apparently accepted the check sent by the Respondent for US$7814.61, carefully marked “Full and Final Payment” as the payment of invoice 310061.

The Arbitrator accepts that the check is marked as a full and final payment, and there is a bona fide dispute on invoice 31145. There, however, is no dispute on invoice 310061. Because there is no dispute on this unrelated invoice, the creditor cannot be “held hostage” by the “full and final” notation contained on the check covering two different transactions.

The Respondent has attempted to explain how the Claimant did accept the payment in paragraphs 5 & 6 of its Defence. It is highly confusing. Two different totals are given, along with the statement “that Respondent did acknowledge owing to the Respondent!!”

The Respondent refers to the Claimant’s Review Report. Both parties submitted this interesting document, so there can be no denying its authenticity, even if it gives the arrival date of November 12, 2006.

This document contains a line “(tpolk 09/07/2013 15:27:40): The product arrived with 3% edge burn and 22% marginal darkening. The customer handled it discreetly. A lower payment is accepted.”

The Respondent interprets this as “an admission from the Claimant that all of the Romaine Liner 24’s arrived showing serious condition problems and that therefore the Respondent was authorized to handle said produce.”

Claimant, however, states the opposite. The Statement of Claim states, “based on the results of this CFIA inspection certificate, the Respondent was immediately put on notice that full payment would be anticipated on this FOB sale.”

The same exact phrase is repeated in the Claimant’s Reply to the Statement of Defence.

Unfortunately, the Claimant has submitted no evidence whatsoever to verify that this “notice” was ever given or on what date. Furthermore, the Claimant, even though submitting a copy of the Claim Review Report themselves, never once comments on it. Not even in its final Reply after the Respondent has brought it to the Arbitrator’s attention.

The Claimant does not comment on the phrase “Accept short payment” in its own Claim Review Report.

The Respondent acknowledges that it owed the Claimant for the 168 cartons of Green Leaf 24’s for US$950.68. Where this number comes from is not explained. Both parties forwarded copies of the Claimant’s original Invoice 311545 for US$915.60.

The Respondent also acknowledges that it owed US$23.50 for the TempTale.

The Claimant asserts that none of this has been paid.

ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION

The Arbitrator ruled that the Respondent should pay the Claimant for all 410 cases. The Claimant should also be paid for the 500 cases that were found to be defective and that the Respondent sold. However, the price the Claimant receives for these cases should reflect the results of the CFIA inspection. This price should be US$5.17, an amount the Claimant had previously been willing to accept, according to its own Statement of Claim.

The Respondent, by its own admission, owed the Claimant 168 cases of 24-ounce Green Leaf and also the TempTale. The Claimant, who received no payment on this invoice, should be reimbursed for the filing fee.

The Claimant has had to wait a full year for payment and is therefore entitled to interest on the undisputed amounts: the Green Leaf and the TempTale.

AWARD

DRC COMMENTS

There are two important issues to address in this case:

1. Importance of inspecting more than 75% of the entire load.
   For an inspection report’s results to be considered representative of the full load, more than 75% of the total load must be physically present and available for the inspector to select samples from. This percentage is based on the request for an appeal inspection under CFIA’s Destination Inspection Services, which states that for an appeal inspection to be conducted, more than 75% of the load must be available. Otherwise, an appeal inspection cannot be conducted, as anything lower than 75% available for inspection will not be considered a representative of the full load.
   
   
2. Properly supporting costs indicated in an account of sales.
   We cannot stress enough the importance of properly backing up any expense or cost indicated in an account of sales. Aside from showing that these expenses were discussed, understood and agreed upon, expenses such as warehousing, dumping, freight, repacking, etc., must be supported by the appropriate receipt or bill. Failing to provide this information can lead to an arbitrator dismissing the account of sales and making their own damages calculation using other methods.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

• To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.
• DRC Trading Standards – Section 9
• Solutions Newsletter Articles:
  • Back to Basics: Account of Sales
  • Claiming Damages: The Power of an itemized Account of Sales

Need Help Navigating Fresh Produce Trade Disputes?

Contact the DRC for information on memberships and expert guidance on preventing and resolving disputes. 
Reach out to us today at info@fvdrc.com or visit www.fvdrc.com/contact to discover how we can help you 
trade with confidence anywhere in the world.

One of the most challenging terms to understand in our industry is the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation’s (DRC) Good Arrival Guidelines (Good Arrival). Before delving into this term, it is essential to understand that Good Arrival only applies to transactions where the parties fail to agree on a specific grade standard, the condition of the product upon arrival, or when the parties agree to a no-grade standard contract.

Additionally, Good Arrival only applies to Free on Board (FOB) sales. For DRC purposes, any sale where the INCOTERMS begins with an “F” or a “C”, falls under the FOB sales concept indicated in section 20.1 of DRC Trading Standards. You can also read more about INCOTERMS in the following articles:

• Incoterms® in Maritime Transportation Transactions and the DRC
• Q & A’s – North American Terms vs. INCOTERMS

To fully understand Good Arrival, we first need to explain the concept of “Suitable Shipping Condition/Good Delivery”. This term implies that a seller assures that, under normal transit time and temperature, the product will meet the agreed quality and condition requirements upon shipment. This infers that some degree of deterioration will normally occur over time, even under the best of transit conditions. This is reflected in the extended percentage of tolerances of defects allowed (1.5 times tolerance of percentage of defects at origin) when the product arrives at its destination.

Good Arrival is a combination of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) 5 Day FOB Good Delivery Guidelines and Canadian Destination Tolerances and Suitable Shipping Condition Guidelines.

Let’s look at two examples: Asparagus and Avocados

The second column is for reference purposes only and is not used on FOB transactions. The third column is based on PACA Good Delivery Guidelines. The main difference in how PACA determines whether a product fails or meets Good Delivery is based on transit times, as the percentage of tolerances vary depending on transit days. For DRC purposes, we only used the PACA Good Delivery tolerances from the 5-day transit tolerances. The fourth column only applies to FOB transactions where the commodity is shipped to Canada, because that commodity has a Canadian grade standard and minimum import requirements apply.

One important element that must be mentioned is that product defects are split between quality/permanent defects and condition defects. Quality/permanent defects are those that do not change with time and only apply to transactions where a grade standard is agreed upon, whereas condition defects are those that change with time. If you are looking at a CFIA inspection, the difference between a quality/permanent and a condition defect is easily identified because a (P) and a (C) will be prior to the named defect, respectively.

In the example of the asparagus where the asparagus are shipped within the United States of America (USA), in FOB transactions, whether the transaction references a grade standard such as FOB U.S. #1(quality/permanent and condition defects count), or the transaction references FOB Good Delivery terms (only condition defects count), the tolerances of defects at destination are 15% total defects, 8% serious damage, and 3% decay.

If these same asparagus were to be shipped to Canada based on FOB U.S. #1 or FOB Good Arrival/Good Delivery, the tolerances of defects at destination are 15% total defects, 10% total quality/permanent defects, 5% of the same single quality/permanent defects, 10% of the same single condition defect, and no more than 3% decay. Quality/permanent defects only count on transactions where a grade standard is referenced.

In the example of the avocados, regardless if the product is shipped within the USA or to Canada, on FOB transactions, given that Canada does not have an avocado grade standard, the tolerances of defects allowed defaults to PACA 5-day Good Delivery or the tolerances established in the third column which are 15% total defects, 8% serious damage, and 3% decay.

Let’s put this information into practice and answer the following questions:

1. A load of asparagus is shipped from the USA to Canada under FOB no grade Good Delivery terms. The asparagus are inspected by the CFIA upon arrival, and the inspection report shows: (P)5% trimming, (C)2% decay, (C)7% spreading, and (C)4% shriveling. Does this product fail or meet DRC Good Arrival? 
   
   Yes____ No____
   
   
2. A load of avocados is shipped from Mexico to Canada under FOB no grade Good Delivery terms. The avocados are inspected by the CFIA upon arrival and the inspection report shows: (C)4% decay, (C)3% discoloration, and (P)5% scars. Does this product fail or meet DRC Good Arrival? 
   
   Yes____ No____

If you are not sure about the answers to the above questions, contact our trading assistance staff at 613-234-0982 ext. 224 or send us an email at jbustamante@fvdrc.com or dpalomino@fvdrc.com.

You may also want to contact our office to request a webinar where we can address DRC Good Arrival Guidelines, among other topics of interest to your staff.

Dispute over the Claimant’s alleged breach of contract due to the shipment of broccoli crowns that did not meet the specified stalk length requirements.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has developed a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.

The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is to administer the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

ABSTRACT

The arbitration decision addresses a dispute between parties from the United States and Canada regarding an alleged breach of contract by the Claimant. The issue arose when the Respondent made a partial payment of the total invoice amount, arguing that the Claimant breached the contract because he ordered “oriental cut/short cut” crown broccoli with stalks and heads that did not meet the specified length requirements.

The arbitrator concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the Claimant had breached their obligation to ship “oriental cut/short cut” broccoli. Additionally, there was no evidence determining any damages that could be awarded to the Respondent.

This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.

CASE: DRC File #18249 – Parties Domiciled – United States and Canada

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The invoice #520610 shows that the Claimant sold 1,232 cartons of “Crowns X” label broccoli, FOB*, at a price of US$6.50 per carton, plus a handling charge of US$25.00. This brings the total invoice amount to US$8,033.00.
The Claimant received a payment of US$2,360.06 from the Respondent and claims that the Respondent still owes a balance of US$5,672.94.

While the Respondent acknowledges the payment of US$2,360.06, they argue that they did not receive the ordered “oriental cut” crown broccoli. To support their claim, the Respondent provided a CFIA inspection certificate (appeal inspection) that describes the length of the stalk and head of the product received. Additionally, they submitted post-delivery emails exchanged between both parties, along with two emails containing unofficial industry opinions regarding the appropriate stalk lengths for “Asian cut” broccoli.

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING

The parties agree that the purchase price was US$8,033.00, but give diametrically opposite accounts about the type of broccoli ordered. The Claimant says the Respondent ordered “short cut” broccoli without discussing the length of the stalk. The Respondent says it ordered “oriental cut crown broccoli” after the Claimant assured it that its “Crowns X” label had a head size of 3 to 6 inches wide and a stalk length of 1 inch.

Where parties put forth affirmative, but conflicting, allegations with respect to a term of the contract, the burden rests upon each to establish their allegation by a preponderance of the evidence. The arbitrator concluded that there was no way to determine which version was correct, since neither party met this burden regarding the type of broccoli ordered during a telephone call between two people with no significant history of dealings with each other.

The Respondent, though, accepted the broccoli by unloading it, and so bears the burden of demonstrating that the Claimant breached the contract, and any resulting damages. The Respondent cannot establish that the Claimant breached the contract by shipping “oriental cut” broccoli since it has not established that the contract was for “oriental cut” broccoli.

Respondent could still have prevailed had they been able to establish that the Claimant breached an obligation to ship “short cut broccoli” since the Claimant admits that they were obligated to ship such broccoli. The Appeal Inspection in the remarks section provides:

“The average and range shown on inspection results show crowns measuring 3 1/2 inches to 6 inches wide; however, the length showed 4 inches to 6 1/2 inches long with the majority between 4 and 5 inches long.”

There are no USDA or Agriculture Canada standards for “short cut” broccoli from which one could determine whether the length of the stalk mentioned in the Appeal Inspection fails to conform with such a standard. While the Respondent submitted two industry opinions, the opinions concern “Asian cut” broccoli, which is presumably the same as “oriental cut” broccoli, and so do not bear upon whether there was a breach of an obligation to ship “short cut” broccoli. And while Claimant apparently believed that the stalk length of the broccoli was longer than usual, as evidenced by the Claimant’s e-mail sent on May 1, 2006, this was insufficient to establish that the length was long enough to constitute a breach. Therefore, the arbitrator determined that the Respondent failed to demonstrate a breach of the Claimant’s obligation to ship “short cut” broccoli.

Even if the Respondent could had been able to prove a breach of contract, its Response in this Arbitration didn’t contain an accounting of its damages. Therefore, there was no way to determine the amount of damages that the Arbitrator should award to the Respondent.

ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION

The arbitrator’s final decision required the Respondent to pay the Claimant US$5,672.94, plus US$600.00 for estimated arbitration fees within 30 days from the date of this decision.

DRC COMMENTS

Whether you are the claimant or the respondent, during the Arbitration Process, it is crucial for each party to properly support their claims.

In the produce industry, business deals are often conducted over the phone, where key details of the transaction—such as contract terms (FOB, Delivered, CIF**, Fixed Price, Consignment, PAS***, etc.) and product descriptions (e.g., quality grade, no grade – Good Delivery/Good Arrival, size, quantity, etc.)—are discussed. It has always been DRC’s strong suggestion that anything communicated verbally should be followed up with an email.

When there is a disagreement or there is no meeting of the minds as to what was discussed verbally, the documents related to the transaction will determine the contract between the parties. If these documents do not clearly specify one or more terms, each party must bear the burden of proof for their respective statements.

In this case, the parties had differing views on the appropriate length of the stalk for “Asian cut” versus “short cut” broccoli. No written communication between the parties outlined what “Asian cut” or “short cut” broccoli entailed. The transaction documents did not reference any specifications, and there were no official standards for “short cut” or “Asian cut” broccoli that the arbitrator could use to assess whether the stalk length referenced in the Appeal Inspection met any expected standard.

Moreover, as the arbitrator mentioned in its decision, even if the arbitrator was inclined to find the Claimant in breach of contract, it would have been challenging to determine the Respondent’s damages, as the Respondent did not provide an account of sales detailing its losses.

*FOB: Free on Board
**CIF: Cost, Insurance, Freight
***P.A.S.: Price after Sale

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.

DRC Dispute Resolution Rules – Section 2: Arbitration

Solutions Newsletter Articles:

• Top Ten Mistakes Parties Make During the Arbitration Process
• Meeting of the minds and burden of proof

Need Help Navigating Fresh Produce Trade Disputes?

Contact the DRC for information on memberships and expert guidance on preventing and resolving disputes. Reach out to us today at info@fvdrc.com or visit www.fvdrc.com/contact to discover how we can help you trade with confidence anywhere in the world.

Summary

The DRC welcomed 18 new members in November 2025. Additionally, some existing members have changed their status, and three were terminated with cause. Scroll below for more information.

Welcome New Members

1958687 ONTARIO INC., ON, Canada
AÑAY PERUVIAN FRUITS SOCIEDAD ANONIMA CERRADA /AÑAY PERUVIAN, Lima, Peru
CANADIAN GINSENG FOOD INC., ON, Canada
DAKAR MONTRÉAL (Faisant également affaire sous Abdoulaye Seck / Seck Abdoulaye), QC, Canada
FIELD FRESH FARMS LLC. CA, United, States
FLAVOR FARMS LLC. (Also d/b/a Flavor Farms), NJ, United States
IMPEX NUMIDIA INTERNATIONAL INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Les Produits Numidia / Numidia Products), QC, Canada
INKA FRUITS LTD., ON, Canada
JB TRANSPORT (A d/b/a of 3398722 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
KATHIR FOODS & PRODUCES INC., ON, Canada
LUXOR AGROINDUSTRIES LTD., BC, Canada
MANGOOD LLC. (Also d/b/a Mangood), Delaware, United States
MILESTONE CUSTOMS BROKERS INC., ON, Canada
PEAKOPIA LLC. (Also d/b/a Peakopia Produce), TX, United States
PREMIUM FIELDS GROUP INC., ON, Canada
SOCIETE FAST EXPO, Morocco
WESTERN PACIFIC PRODUCE INC., CA, United States
WIKIFARMER ESPAÑA S.L., Sevilla, Spain

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of November 30th, 2025, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

ABIDJAN SERVICES ALIMENTAIRES INC., QC, Canada
AGAPE INNOVATIONS GROUP INC. (Also d/b/a Santana Fruits & More Canada Co.), ON, Canada
ARROWLEAF CELLARS INC. (Also d/b/a Arrowleaf Cellars), BC, Canada
BC TREE FRUITS COOPERATIVE, BC, Canada
CHONG LOONG PRODUCE (2004) LTD., BC, Canada
F.A. INTERNATIONAL INC., ON, Canada
FOOLISH WINE INC. (Also d/b/a Foolish Wine), BC, Canada
LA FABRIQUE ST-GEORGE INC. (Also d/b/a La Fabrique St-George), BC, Canada
LAKESIDE CELLARS LTD., BC, Canada
MARIONETTE WINERY LTD., BC, Canada
NAZCHEL IMPORTS (A d/b/a of Evan James), ON, Canada
PEPPERS PLUS, LLC., AZ, United States
PRIDE GROUP LOGISTICS LTD., ON, Canada
SAFI FRUITS ET LEGUMES (A d/b/a of 9259-1049 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
SALADEXPRESS INC., QC, Canada
T. E. PRODUCE IMPORT AND EXPORT LTD., BC, Canada
TENDER HOPE HOLDING LTD. (Also d/b/a Tender Hope Winery), BC, Canada
THERAPY VINEYARDS LTD. (Also d/b/a Therapy Vineyards & Inn), BC, Canada

Termination with Cause

SAFI FRUITS ET LEGUMES (A d/b/a of 9259-1049 Quebec Inc.) was automatically terminated from the DRC membership effective November 3, 2025, for failing to comply with an arbitration award.

SALADEXPRESS INC. was terminated from the DRC membership effective November 12, 2025, for having filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

PRIDE GROUP LOGISTICS LTD. was terminated from the DRC membership as it filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine (9) months from when the claim arose or within nine (9) months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

For questions about membership changes, contact our Help Desk.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for the fresh produce industry. The DRC serves as a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a member of the DRC.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services, and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who fail to conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation and mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

In the first two articles of our three-part series, we explored the benefits of DRC membership and how to prevent termination. In our final part, we focus on how to maintain a strong, long-lasting membership.

Wherever your business operates, success in the fresh produce trade depends on trust, transparency, and preparation. A DRC membership helps you achieve all three — connecting you with a trusted network, clear Trade Standards, and practical dispute-prevention tools. Together, these resources empower your business to trade with confidence, prevent costly misunderstandings, and build stronger trading relationships.

Here are five best practices to help you maintain your DRC membership:

1. Verify Your Trading Partners
   As a DRC member, always confirm your trading partners’ active status before any transaction—use DRC’s online membership directory or reach out to the Help Desk for quick verification. This essential practice can help mitigate against disputes, financial losses, and supply chain disruptions in the fast-paced produce industry. While non-membership can limit DRC’s mediation support and expose you to unenforceable agreements. If they’re not members, invite them to join; it’s a win-win for smoother, more reliable trade.
   
   
2. Follow the Standards That Build Trust
   Strong business relationships start with clear expectations. Familiarize yourself with DRC’s Trading Standards, Transportation Standards, and Good Arrival Guidelines — and make sure your team and trading partners follow them. Sharing your procedures up front helps prevent confusion, promotes fairness, and strengthens trust across every transaction.
   
   
3. Keep Financial Commitments on Track
   Make payments based on the terms you have agreed to. Timely payments demonstrate reliability. Ensure you pay your membership fees in a timely manner to maintain your good standing. Use the Members Only Portal to keep track of membership invoices and payments. If you have any questions, contact the DRC Helpdesk at info@fvdrc.com or (+1) 613-234-0982 for quick assistance.
   
   
4. Stay Ahead of Disputes
   Preventing disputes is always easier than resolving them. Take advantage of DRC’s confidential consultations, Help Desk, seminars, fact sheets, and Solutions Newsletter to stay informed and proactive. If a problem does arise, act quickly, safeguard your fresh produce, and document everything to support any potential claims. These proactive steps help minimize losses and maintain strong trading relationships.
   
   
5. Membership Bonding Requirements May Apply
   Financial security may apply to companies or employees. If the DRC Bonding Policy applies to your business or employees, financial security will avoid membership sanctions. Regularly review your business practices to stay compliant and protect your company’s reputation in the global produce industry.

Conclusion

A strong DRC membership is more than a requirement — it’s an investment in your business’s credibility, stability, and growth. By following these best practices, you can trade with confidence, prevent disputes before they start, and strengthen your relationships across the global produce supply chain.

Want to enjoy the benefits of DRC membership? Contact us at info@fvdrc.com or (+1) 613-234-0982 to join. Whether you need advice, assistance, or resources to support your operations, our team is here to help your business succeed.

Additional Resources

Solutions Newsletter Articles: 

• First two articles of this three-part series:
  • Part 1: Maximizing Your Potential with a DRC Membership
  • Part 2: Protecting Your Business: Understanding DRC Membership Termination
• What Triggers the Fruit & Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation’s (DRC’s) Bonding Policy
• Ten Steps to Fight Freight Fraud
• A little Due Diligence and Helpful Tips from the DRC

DRC Web Pages: 

• Member Benefits
• Active and Inactive Members List
• Trade Standards
• Dispute Resolution

Subscribe to DRC’s Solution Newsletter. 

—

If you have any questions about the article and would like to learn more, our team at the DRC is here to assist you. We value your inquiries and are eager to provide support. Click here to proceed.

 

October 2025 Membership Summary

The DRC welcomed 11 new members in October 2025. Additionally, some existing members have changed their status. Scroll below for the complete list of new members, changes in membership status, and information about DRC’s dispute resolution services.

Welcome New Members

AD PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
ARVISTA GLOBAL INC., ON, Canada
ASICA FARMS S.A.C., La Libertad, Peru
BRAMPTON CASH & CARRY INC., ON, Canada
DARA MARKETING COMPANY, CA, United States
EMPACADORA FRUSEGA CARICHO SA DE CV, Michoacan, Mexico
FOREVER FRESH LLC., PA, United States
HERITAGE GROWN INC., ON, Canada
KINGS RIVER PACKING LP, CA, United States
OHMEX PRODUCE, ON, Canada
THE PARADISE FARMS S.A.C., Lima, Peru

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of October 31st, 2025, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

DEEP ROOTS WINERY LTD. (Also d/b/a Deep Roots), BC, Canada
EXPORTADORA, INMOBILIARIA, AGRICOLA E INVERSIONES POMPEIA LTDA, Maule, Chile
HOLA PRODUCE INC., BC, Canada
LARCH HILLS WINERY LTD. (Also d/b/a Larch Hills Winery), BC, Canada
MCINTOSH FARMS LTD. (Also d/b/a SpearHead Winery), BC, Canada
VALLEY COMMONS WINERY LTD. (Also d/b/a Stoneboat Vineyards), BC, Canada

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for the fresh produce industry. The DRC serves as a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a member of the DRC.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services, and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who fail to conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation and mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

This is the second article in our three-part series on Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) membership. Part one explored the benefits of joining the DRC, and in the upcoming part three, we’ll explain the option of maintaining an active membership when facing disciplinary membership actions, termination or expulsion.

The DRC empowers the fresh produce industry with tools for success, but maintaining membership requires following its standards and guidelines. Membership termination or expulsion helps provide fairness and reliability amongst trade partners. If members have concerns about what is required to maintain membership, they are encouraged to contact the DRC for guidance and support.

6 Key Reasons for Termination

1. Non-Compliance with DRC By-Laws and Operating Rules

Members of the DRC are required to adhere to its By-Laws and Operating Rules, which establish clear standards for membership. These requirements serve to promote fair trade practices, minimize commercial disputes, and ensure swift resolution of conflicts that may arise. By fostering trust and consistency across the fresh produce industry, the DRC strengthens relationships and supports a thriving, equitable marketplace.

2. Failure to Meet Financial Obligations

Timely payment of membership fees and arbitration awards ensures access to the DRC’s trusted dispute resolution services and bolsters industry credibility. Non-payment risks sanctions, including membership termination, which may restrict Canadian members from trade across provinces or internationally, potentially violating the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR). Such lapses can jeopardize trading privileges, credit, and exports, damaging a business’s reputation and opportunities in the fresh produce industry. 

3. Hiring Sanctioned Individuals

Hiring individuals with recent insolvency, court-ordered restrictions, or DRC expulsion within the past five years may require the posting of financial security under the DRC’s Bonding Policy. This financial security serves as a safety measure, ensuring that members demonstrate financial responsibility and protecting trading partners from potential risks. Compliance strengthens industry trust and credibility, supporting reliable trade relationships. Failure to provide the bond will risk termination of membership, limit market access and undermine a business’s reputation in the fresh produce industry.

4. Voluntary Resignation

Members may voluntarily resign from the DRC, provided they settle any outstanding obligations. Proper resignation preserves credibility and supports ongoing trade relationships in the fresh produce industry. Post-resignation, members remain liable for claims if a Notice of Dispute is filed within nine months of the claim’s occurrence or within nine months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence, ensuring accountability.

5. Violation of Rules

Violations, such as submitting false information or failing to honour an arbitration award, may lead to DRC expulsion. Adhering to rules fosters trust and strengthens trade networks. Expelled members remain liable for claims if a Notice of Dispute is filed within nine months of the claim’s occurrence, upholding accountability and protecting the fresh produce industry’s integrity.

6. Bankruptcy, Insolvency, or Suspension of Operations

Bankruptcy, insolvency, or suspension of operations without settling obligations may result in termination of DRC membership. This protects the fresh produce industry from financial disruptions and upholds accountability. By maintaining financial stability, members build trust, connect with reliable partners, and drive growth, fostering confidence in a stable trading environment.

Conclusion

Keeping an active DRC membership brings significant benefits. By staying informed and addressing risks promptly, members can protect their business and reputation, ultimately leading to long-term success. Reviewing practices and using the DRC Helpdesk strengthens compliance and provides tailored support, ensuring a fair trading environment for all.

Stay connected with the DRC by following us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X, subscribing to the Solutions Newsletter, or visiting www.fvdrc.com to stay updated and learn how DRC can support your business!

Resources

DRC By-Laws and Operating Rules

DRC Solution Articles:

• Part 1 of 3 Membership Benefits: Maximizing Your Potential with a DRC Membership
• What Triggers the DRC’s Bonding Policy?

Safe Food for Canadians Regulations

September 2025 Membership Summary

The DRC welcomed 11 new members in September 2025. Additionally, some existing members have changed their status. Scroll below for the complete list of new members, changes in membership status, and information about DRC’s dispute resolution services.

Welcome new members!

9548-4192 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada
AL SHAM MARKET INC. (Also d/b/a AL SHAM MARKET), ON, Canada
HOKKAIDO PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
JR AVOCATS DU MEXIQUE INC., QC, Canada
LIVA BLINDS AND SHADE (A d/b/a of Harun Karakus), ON, Canada
NUTRAFARMS INC. (Also d/b/a Nutrafresh), ON, Canada
RÉMIS HOP! INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Rémis, Rémis Jus, Rémis Zeste, Rémis Dishydrate), QC, Canada
SUMMIT LOGISTICS GROUP LLC., NC, United States
TOM MACDONALD TRUCKING LIMITED, NS, Canada
UNE TOUCHE D’AIL SAUCIER-TAILLERFER INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Une Touche d’Ail), QC, Canada
WORLD PRODUCE TRADING INC., ON, Canada

DRC Membership Change In Status

As of September 30th, 2025, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

1484497 B.C. LTD., BC, Canada
14953134 CANADA INC., ON, Canada
50TH PARALLEL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BC, Canada
AGRO RASPBERRY SPR DE RL DE CV, Jalisco, Mexico
AMIN TRADING LTD., BC, Canada
B&J BENGAG ORCHARDS (A d/b/a of Balbir Bengag, Jasvir Bengag), BC, Canada
BISKRA-DZ LTD., ON, Canada
CANADA FARM SUPERMARKET LTD., BC, Canada
COLOREXA SAC, Lima, Peru
CYRUS GATE IMPORT LTD., BC, Canada
EARLCO WINES LTD. (Also d/b/a Three Sisters Winery), BC, Canada
ELYSIA VINEYARD LTD. (Also d/b/a Lightning Rock Winery), BC, Canada
En Terre Vineyards Ltd. (Also d/b/a Terravista Vineyards), BC, Canada
GEHRINGER BROS. ENTERPRISES LTD. (Also d/b/a Gehringer Brothers Estate Wineries), BC, Canada
GOLDEN GATE TRADE LTD., ON, Canada
GREEN GOLD IMPORT-EXPORT CANADA INC., ON, Canada
JOIE VENTURES INC. (Also d/b/a JoieFarm Winery), BC, Canada
LA FRENZ ESTATE WINERY LTD. (Also d/b/a La Frenz Estate Winery), BC, Canada
TAHA INTERNATIONAL INC., QC, Canada
TERRABELLA WINERIES LTD., BC, Canada
TRIPLE K DISTRIBUTOR LTD., SK, Canada
TROPIC SUN IMPORT AND EXPORT INC., ON, Canada
VAN RAAY FARMS LTD., ON, Canada
VERCROP AGRICULTURE CORPORATION, ON, Canada
VIETNCA TRADING LTD. VIETNCA TRADING LTD. (Also d/b/a Viet Ship Trading), BC, Canada

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for the fresh produce industry. The DRC serves as a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a member of the DRC.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services, and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who fail to conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation and mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

Dispute regarding the use of private surveys and a potential deduction agreement.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has developed a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.

The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is to administer the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

ABSTRACT

The arbitration decision addresses a dispute between parties from Spain and Canada regarding an alleged agreement that the product was purchased with a Specific Grade Standard (U.S. No. 1) and whether the product met those standards upon arrival.

The arbitrator concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the Respondent’s alleged agreement to purchase the product to a Specific Grade Standard (U.S. No. 1). Without enough evidence to uphold this alleged agreement, the arbitrator decided the U.S. No. 1 Grade Standard could not be taken into consideration. Consequently, the assessment of conformance to the contract would default to the DRC Good Arrival Guidelines.

This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.

Need Help Navigating Fresh Produce Trade Disputes?

Contact the DRC for information on memberships and expert guidance on preventing and resolving disputes. 
Reach out to us today at info@fvdrc.com or visit www.fvdrc.com/contact to discover how we can help you 
trade with confidence anywhere in the world.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) is a non-profit, membership based organization dedicated to providing efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution services to the global fresh produce industry. Becoming a DRC member offers significant advantages for growers, buyers, sellers, brokers, and carriers, while adherence to specific DRC trade standards contributes to fair and ethical commerce.

Key membership benefits include:

1. Enhanced Business Reputation and Networking Opportunities:
   DRC members are recognized as preferred trading partners, signalling commitment to fair and ethical trading practices. This reputation builds trust with international buyers, sellers, and partners, fostering valuable networking opportunities through access to an extensive member directory. Members can verify the status of potential partners, ensuring secure and reliable transactions across borders.

2. Educational Resources and Best Practices:
   The DRC provides education and counselling to help members avoid disputes. Members also gain access to tailored tools, including Trading Standards, Transportation Standards, and Good Arrival Guidelines, which promote fair and efficient business practices globally. The monthly Solutions Newsletter provides educational articles, arbitration briefs, and insights to support members and non-members. Additionally, the DRC collaborates with industry associations and governments to develop best practices and reform legislation, creating a level playing field for all participants.

3. Access to Dispute Resolution Services
   The DRC serves as a neutral referee in commercial disputes, offering consultation, mediation, and arbitration services in English, French, and Spanish. With a proven track record of resolving claims worth over $105 million, 80% of disputes are settled through informal consultation or mediation, with an average resolution time of 26 days. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that adhere to the New York Convention of 1958, providing members with legal recourse worldwide.

4. Regulatory Compliance for Canadian Businesses
   For Canadian businesses involved in buying, selling, importing, or exporting fresh produce, DRC membership fulfills a mandatory requirement under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR). This compliance ensures adherence to federal regulations. The membership is voluntary for companies outside of Canada. For international members, a DRC membership aligns with global trade standards, enhancing credibility in cross-border transactions.

5. Risk Management and Financial Security
   DRC’s membership is a robust risk management tool supporting the smooth flow of transactions. Members benefit from one-on-one, professional, and confidential consultations to navigate complex trade scenarios internationally.

   The DRC’s Bonding Policy may require financial security in some cases, protecting the industry from insolvency risks and ensuring members uphold ethical standards.

6. Access to the Members Only Portal
   The DRC’s Members Only Portal provides a user-friendly platform to access the global membership directory, view reports (including past and present disputes), update membership information, and pay membership fees. This tool streamlines administrative tasks and enhances connectivity for members worldwide.

What Our Members Say

Testimonials from members highlight the value of these benefits. Rally Logistics, Inc., a Canadian member, notes:

“As a member of DRC since our inception, we have found the resources and protection DRC provides us as both a broker and carrier to be invaluable! You shouldn’t be in the produce business without a membership, regardless of your role!”

Similarly, Meridian Fruits SPR de RL, based in Mexico, praises the DRC’s dispute resolution services:

“The DRC’s mediation process was efficient and professional, resolving our dispute quickly and fairly, exceeding our expectations.”

Conclusion

DRC membership equips businesses in the global fresh produce industry with tools to succeed, from building trusted partnerships to resolving disputes efficiently and ensuring compliance with trade standards. This contributes to the economic viability of the whole fruit and vegetable sector globally. By leveraging DRC’s resources, members can elevate their operations worldwide.

This article kicks off our three-part series on DRC membership. In part two, we’ll uncover “Protecting Your Business: Understanding DRC Membership Termination” to help you avoid common pitfalls. Part three will explain the option of maintaining a membership in good standing when facing disciplinary membership actions, termination or expulsion: “How to Protect and Strengthen Your DRC Membership.”  Follow our socials and newsletter to stay informed!

Visit the DRC website to join and learn how to drive your business forward, wherever you operate.