Rodd v. Canada (Agriculture)

Rodd v. Canada (Agriculture)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2005-11-30
Neutral citation
2005 FC 1625
File numbers
P-65-92
Decision Content
Date: 20051130
Docket: P-65-92
Citation: 2005 FC 1625
BETWEEN:
JAMES B. RODD
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PHELAN J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an appeal pursuant to s. 40 of the Plant Protection Act, S.C. 1990, c. 22 (the "Act") regarding the disposition of the Appellant's claim (and arguably that of his father's) under the Act and the Plant Quarantine Regulations of May 27, 1991, SOR/91-345.
[2] Compensation was claimed for loss arising from the destruction by Agriculture Canada of four varieties of his seed potatoes and for the loss of sales which were contracted for prior to the imposition of the quarantine on PEI's 1990 potato crop. The claim stems from the federal and provincial governments' program to eradicate the tobacco veinal necrosis strain of potato virus Y (commonly called "PVYn").
[3] The Appellant raises two issues in this appeal:
· Whether the compensation paid was reasonable as required under the Act; ("Compensation Calculation")
· Whether the Appellant's appeal encompasses the losses from his father's (Gordon) land and land owned together with his father. ("Number of Appellants")
BACKGROUND
[4] The Appellant, James B. Rodd ("Rodd") was a farmer living in North Milton, PEI, where he was engaged in the business of growing and selling seed potatoes. He says that he and his father farmed their potato lots together for a number of years. Rodd had four (4) lots in his own name, two (2) were jointly held and one (1) was in his father's name. Each lot had approximately 24 hectares; and had their own respective producer number.
[5] In October 1990, Rodd and his father received a Notice of Infested Place which quarantined each of the lots. The Notice was addressed to both Gordon and James B. Rodd as "owner/occupant".
[6] As a result of the quarantine order, Rodd and his father were required to compost all the seed potatoes in their bins and they were unable to fulfil the seed potato delivery contracts into which Rodd had entered.
[7] The Appellant was among many farmers affected in eastern Canada, when Agriculture Canada, in cooperation with provincial governments, adopted a program in 1990 to eradicate PVYn. A quarantine regime was adopted which effectively eliminated almost all potato deliveries from Prince Edward Island.
[8] As a result of the devastating effect that the quarantine regime had on the potato industry, federal and provincial officials, in consultation with representatives of growers, set up an arrangement for compensation for those who had suffered loss. The compensation scheme was enacted in the Plant Quarantine Regulations. These Regulations went through three revisions in a relatively short period - for purposes of this appeal, SOR 91/345 is the applicable version.
[9] There was some evidence that the whole program of PVYn eradication and compensation had numerous problems. The Appellant played a prominent role in challenging the respective governments on many issues arising from its program. None of that evidence is particularly relevant to this appeal except as background. Suffice it to say that some farmers were not happy with the eradication program, the science used to support it, the administration of the compensation, and the ultimate payouts made under the compensation scheme.
[10] The Appellant applied, he says on behalf of himself and his father, for compensation, as provided in the Regulations. Mr. Gary Paynter, an employee of the federal government, who administered this aspect of the program, dealt with the Appellant's claim. Fortunately, he was also available to testify fourteen years later in these proceedings.
[11] For ease of reference, the applicable sections of the Regulations are attached as Appendix A to these Reasons.
[12] The Appellant was considered to be a "new grower" for purposes of the Regulations. Since there was no history of prior sales in respect of new growers upon which compensation could be based, the Regulations compensated new growers for actual lost sales for which there were contracts (oral or written) in 1990/91. The Regulations also compensated for the seed potatoes which could not be produced on the basis that one (1) hectare of potatoes would produce 500 hundred weight of seed potatoes ("500 cwt/ha").
[13] For purposes of this case, only part of the calculation method is relevant. In calculating compensation, the Respondent established a format applicable to all applicants for compensation. The first part of the calculation was the determination of number of hectares actually planted. Compensation was based on a specified amount per planted hectare (e.g. $2,300.00) depending on the type of potato planted (e.g. Foundation seed - Conestoga).
[14] For new growers, the format required insertion of the total cwt of the potato type contracted for in 1990/91. This was then divided by the assumed production per hectare of 500 cwt resulting in a notional computation of the number of hectares planted - which may or may not accord with the number of hectares planted if the grower had agreed to sell more potatoes than the assumed hectares planted could yield under the Regulations.
[15] The problem in this case was the understanding of the operation of this 500 cwt/ha assumed yield. When the calculation of compensation was based on lost sales, the Respondent considered that no matter the total sales of seed potatoes for which there were contracts, the maximum a new grower could obtain was that grower's actual hectares planted (converted to cwt) divided by 500 cwt/ha assumed yield. Under no circumstances could the compensation exceed the amount based on hectares planted regardless of the actual sales for which there were contracts.
[16] The Respondent interpreted the Regulations in a manner which capped the compensation on the assumption of the assumed yield per hectare actually planted.
[17] The Appellant was unhappy with the compensation received and took the matter to a Review Committee established as a first stage of review of compensation awarded. The compensation was upheld in part with some increases permitted. The matter now comes before me as a Assessor under the Act.
[18] This appeal has taken a long time to surface. The record suggests that only when the Respondent suggested moving to strike the appeal, did the matter move along. In some sense, this move was equivalent to waking the sleeping giant. It was at that time that the Appellant says he became aware that his appeal did not include the joint lots with his father and that of his father's own lot. It is also as a result that the Respondent has recognized an error in the manner in which compensation was calculated.
ANALYSIS
Re: Compensation Calculation
[19] There were a number of appeals heard in the early to mid 1990s. In Smith v. Canada(Minister of Agriculture), [1993] F.C.J. No. 859, Mr. Justice MacKay reviewed the interpretation and application of the Regulations in respect of seed potatoes.
[20] Justice MacKay held that the compensation application form was in error. The method of calculation for new growers did not limit the compensation to the number of hectares planted. The Regulations provided for compensation for the amount of potatoes contracted for sale, expressed as the number of hectares of potatoes sold.
[21] Justice MacKay recognized that this formula could effectively result in a farmer being paid for more hectares than he had planted. Mr. Paynter had understood the Regulations to have capped the compensation such that this result would not occur.
[22] The Respondent has conceded that the Appellant's compensation was not calculated in accordance with the Regulations as interpreted by Justice MacKay. Whether this concession applies to other claimants and whether this re-opens the whole compensation process for new growers has not been put before the Court.
[23] As a result, this matter will be referred back to the Minister for reconsideration in accordance with these Reasons. It makes no practical sense to have the Assessor set compensation, particularly as there will be some new facts, including the number of contracts, which must be considered.
Re: Number of Appellants
[24] The next issue is whether such review should include the lots jointly owned with the Appellant's father (and if so, whether only in respect of the Appellant's interests) and the lot owned by the father. Gordon Rodd is now deceased and the Appellant claims that he is one of the executors of his will.
[25] The Respondent has raised the question of whether, on judicial review, an assessor can take account of new evidence and argument on this or, presumably, on any other issue.
[26] The powers of an assessor, under s. 41 of the Act, not only include the traditional judicial review remedies of confirmation or referral back to the Minister, but also include the power to vary the Minister's disposition. A similar power exists under the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act. The Rules of Procedure governing the assessor appeals (SOR/87-65) include the power to admit documents and hear viva voce evidence.
[27] From both the legislation and the rules, I conclude that this proceeding is judicial review with a difference - if it is judicial review or an appeal at all. In my view, the assessor has the power to consider the matter de novo and may either recalculate the compensation or refer it back to the Minister for recalculation based on facts as found by the assessor or refer a matter back for complete reconsideration.
[28] The evidentiary record on the issue of whether the appeal from the Minister's determination included both James and Gordon Rodd's claims is somewhat skimpy. The appeal letter, the document which initiated this process, is signed only by Rodd and is phrased in terms of the singular - "I" and "my" - when expressing dissatisfaction and intent to appeal. Moreover, the claims were advanced separately under three grower numbers; one for Rodd; one for the joint interest; and one for his father. This indicates very separate legal interest.
[29] The Respondent takes the very reasonable position that since May 1992, this appeal has stood in Rodd's name only. The Appellant took no steps to advance the appeal, and never referenced his father's interests in any appeal documents. The Appellant explains this omission as an error in his assumption that he was appealing throughout on behalf of both himself and his father.
[30] However, the Appellant testified as to how he and his father farmed jointly and cooperatively. They had adjoining land, they rotated their fields together as a common unit of production, and used common equipment in their combined operations. Perhaps most telling is the fact that the quarantine order was issued against both of them together at the same time in the same document.
[31] Rodd explained that his father was not a public man; that relations with customers and governments were handled by the son. He also testified that he considered that he was making the appeals at all levels on behalf of the two of them and that only when the Respondent moved to strike this appeal did he learn that his appeal was being treated as his own and that this father's interests had been excluded.
[32] There is documentary evidence which corroborates the joint nature of the appeal. The first challenge to the compensation, dealt with by a Review Committee, was filed in the joint names. The Committee treated that appeal as a joint matter, as evidenced by the correspondence from the Committee.
[33] Against this background, the appeal to the assessor process from the Review Committee decision is an anomaly as it is phrased in the singular. There is no separate appeal document filed on behalf of the father.
[34] Given that the father was aware of the appeal process and the fact that the son had carriage of their joint appeal at the Review Committee level, it seems highly unlikely that the father would have abandoned his appeal rights. I consider it more consistent that the actions of the son were to include the interests of the father; that that had been the intention of both of them.
[35] This issue of joint appeals could have been more problematic if this appeal had not been reopened and Rodd's appeal referred back because it had not been determined in accordance with the Regulations as interpreted by Justice MacKay.
[36] Therefore, I conclude that the Minister shall, in reconsidering the Rodd appeal, calculate the compensation for both father and son individually and jointly as the circumstances dictate.
COSTS
[37] The Appellant asks that he be awarded costs on a full indemnity basis. He asks that he receive reimbursement for his representative's costs of approximately $17,000 - $18,000. The Respondent suggests something in the range of $1,000.
[38] The Appellant must bear some responsibility for the way in which this appeal was handled. The Respondent must also accept some responsibility for not knowing earlier that it had erred in its compensation calculation. The Appellant cannot obtain greater costs than if he had retained counsel; indeed a representative is not counsel. However, these proceedings were facilitated by the Appellant not representing himself and having someone lead his evidence, cross-examine and make argument.
[39] Therefore, the Appellant having been successful, I assess costs including disbursements to be set at $3,500.00 as a lump sum award in favour of the Appellant.
CONCLUSION
[40] The appeal shall be allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister to be redetermined on the basis of the record as may be supplemented and to be decided in accordance with the decision of Justice MacKay and in a manner consistent with these Reasons.
"Michael L. Phelan"
DEPUTY ASSESSOR
PLANT PROTECTION REGISTRAR OF APPEALS
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: P-65-92
STYLE OF CAUSE: James B. Rodd
and
The Minister of Agriculture
PLACE OF HEARING: Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
DATE OF HEARING: November 21 and 22, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan, Deputy Assessor
DATED: November 30, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Kevin J. Arsenault (agent)
FOR THE APPELLANT
Sandra Doucette
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
N/A
FOR THE APPELLANT
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT
APPENDIX A TO THE REASONS FOR ORDER IN JAMES B. RODD v. THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (P-65-92)
Registration
SOR/91-345 27 May, 1991
PLANT PROTECTION ACT
Plant Quarantine Regulations, amendment
P.C. 1991-969 24 May, 1991
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and the Trea­sury Board, pursuant to section 47 of the Plant Protection Act*, is pleased hereby to amend the Plant Quarantine Regu­lations, C.R.C., 1273, in accordance with the schedule hereto.
SCHEDULE
1. Paragraph 16(2)(b)' of the Plant Quarantine Regulations is revoked and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) $200 per hectare."
2. Sections 18.3 to 18.6' of the said Regulations are revoked and the following substituted therefor:
"18.3 (1) Where an inspector, on inspecting any thing that is produced in Canada, finds that the thing is infested with a pest or suspects that the thing is so infested, the inspector may, on the basis of that infestation or suspicion or on the basis that the thing constitutes or could constitute a biological obstacle to the control of that pest, require the owner of the thing or the person having the possession, care or control of the thing to dispose of it.
(2) The requirement by an inspector under subsection (1) for the disposition of a thing shall be made in writing and shall specify the manner of disposition and, where appli­cable, the place of disposition and the time limit for the dis­position.
18.31 (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 18.32 to 18.39,
"affected area" means an area in Canada that is infested or suspected of being infested with the tobacco veinal necro­sis strain of potato virus Y, and includes the quarantine area; (endroit touclth)
"grower" means a seed potato grower; (producteur) "nuclear stock" means any tuber, plant or vegetative propa­gule that is produced in a sterile environment from tissue
i
culture that as been subjected to laboratory tests and found free of isease; (racine de base)
"Pre-elite seed potatoes" means seed potatoes that an inspector, who is appointed or designated under the Seeds Act, has determined were
* S.C. 1990, c. 22
SOR/91-241, 1991 Canada Gazette Part 11, p. 1398Enregistrement
DORS/91-345 27 mai 1991
LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DES VEGETAUX
Reglement sur la quarantaine des plantes­Modification
C.P. 1991-969 24 mai 1991
Sur recommandation du ministre de ('Agriculture et du Conseil du Tresor et en vertu de ]'article 47 de la Loi sur la protection des vegetaux*, it plait a Son Excellence le Gouver­neur general en conseil de modifier, conformement a l'annexe ci-aprês, le Reglement sur la quarantaine des plantes, C.R.C., ch. 1273.
ANNEXE
1. L'alinea 16(2)b)' du Reglement sur la quarantaine des plantes est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit :
b) 200 $ l'hectare.,
2. Les articles 18.3 a 18.6' du merne reglement sont abroges et remplaces par ce qui suit :
« 18.3 (1) Lorsque l'inspecteur constate, a l'inspection d'une chose produite au Canada, qu'elle est infestee par un parasite-ou soupconnee de l'etre--, it peut, sur la foi de cette constatation ou pour le motif que la chose constitue ou peut constituer un obstacle biologique a la lutte contre ce parasite, ordonner a son proprietaire ou a la personne qui en a la possession, la responsabilite ou la charge des soins d'en disposer, notamment de la detruire.
(2) L'ordre vise au paragraphe (1) est donne par ecrit et precise le mode de disposition exige ainsi que, le cas echeant, le lieu et le delai prescrits a cette fin.
18.31 (1) Les definitions qui suivent s'appliquent au pre­sent article et aux articles 18.32 a 18.39.
oendroit touché* S'entend d'un endroit au Canada qui est infeste-ou soupconne de l'etre-par la souche du virus Y de la pomme de terre responsable de la necrose des nervu­res du tabac, y compris la zone de quarantaine. (affected area)
apomme de terre de semence S'entend au sens du paragra­phe 45(1) du Reglement sur les semences et, accompagne de la designation de classe Elite I, Elite II, Elite III, Fon­dation ou Certifiee, s'entend de la pomme de terre de semence de la classe respective ótablie par le paragraphe 47(1) de ce reglement. (seed potato)
apommes de terre de semence Pre-Elite* Pommes de terre de semence qui, de l'avis d'un inspecteur nomme ou designe aux termes de la Loi sur les semences :
L.C. 1990, ch. 22
DORS/91-241, Gazette du Canada Partie II, 1991, p. 1398
(a) produced from nuclear stock or from cuttings or plants that were derived from tubers or selected clones that were determined by laboratory tests to be free of any disease that could affect the quality of the seed,
(b) removed from a sterile environment and planted in a field that has been free from potatoes for the previous two years, and
(c) visually inspected by an inspector, appointed or des­ignated under the Seeds Act, at least three times during the growing season and, on each inspection, were deter­mined to be visibly free from varietal mixtures and free from visual symptoms of viruses or diseases that could affect the quality of the seed; (pommes de terre de semence Pre-Elite)
"quarantine area" means the area of Prince Edward Island described in Schedule I to the Tobacco Veinal Necrosis Order Concerning Potatoes on Prince Edward Island, made by the Minister on May 3, 1991; (zone de quaran­taine)
"seed potato" means a seed potato as defined in subsection 45(1) of the Seeds Regulations and, where used with the grade Elite I, Elite II, Elite III, Foundation or Certified, means a seed potato of that grade as established by sub­section 47(1) of those Regulations. (pomme de terre de semence)
(2) For the purposes of sections 18.32 to 18.39, a hectare of seed potatoes shall be considered to have a yield of 500 hundredweight of seed potatoes.
18.32 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and section 18.35, where a grower has disposed of, or where an inspector requires a grower to dispose of, any seed potatoes that are infested or suspected of being infested with the tobacco vei­nal necrosis strain of potato virus Y and were produced in 1990 by the grower and the disposition results in a loss to the grower for which the grower is not required by these Regulations to be responsible, the Minister may, where the Minister receives an application for compensation from the grower not later than August 1, 1991, order compensation to be paid to the grower in respect of the seed potatoes, in an amount not exceeding
(a) in respect of Pre-elite seed potatoes, $15,960 per hec­tare;
(b) in respect of Elite I seed potatoes, $8,800 per hectare;
(c) in respect of Elite II seed potatoes, $8,000 per hectare;
(d) in respect of Elite III seed potatoes, $3,400 per hec­tare;
(e) in respect of Foundation seed potatoes, $2,300 per hectare; and
(f) in respect of Certified seed potatoes, $1,900 per hec­tare.
(2) The seed potatoes in respect of which a grower may be compensated under subsection (1) are seed potatoes that are disposed of for the reason that they are
(a) infested with the pest referred to in subsection (1);
a) ont ete produites a partir de racines de base, de bou­tures ou de plants issus de tubercules ou de clones selec­tionnes qui, lors de tests en laboratoire, ont ete trouves exempts de maladies susceptibles d'alterer la qualite de la semence;
b) ont ete retires d'un milieu sterile et plantês dans un champ oil it n'y avait pas eu de culture de pommes de terre pendant les deux annees precedentes;
c) ont ete inspectes visuellement au moins trois fois au cours de la saison de croissance par un inspecteur nomme ou designe aux termes de la Loi sur les semen­ces et, a chaque inspection, ne montraient pas de carac­têres distinctifs d'autres varietes ni de symptOmes de viroses ou de maladies, susceptibles d'alterer la qualite de la semence. (Pre-elite seed potatoes)
producteur Producteur de pommes de terre de semence. (grower)
« racine de base" Tout tubercule, plant ou propagule vegetatif produit en milieu sterile a partir de cultures de tissus trou­vêes exemptes de maladies apres avoir ete soumises a des tests en laboratoire. (nuclear stock)
« zone de quarantaineA Region de l'ile-du-Prince-Edouard designee a l'annexe I de 1 Arrete concernant le virus Y de la pomme de terre responsable de la necrose des nervures du tabac dans l'Ile-du-Prince-Edouard, pris par le ministre le 3 mai 1991. (quarantine area)
(2) Pour l'application des articles 18.32 a 18.39, un hec­tare de pommes de terre de semence equivaut a 500 quin­taux de pommes de terre de semence.
18.32 (1) Sous reserve du paragraphe (2) et de l'article 18.35, lorsqu'un producteur de pommes de terre de semence a dispose, notamment par destruction, de pommes de terre de semence qu'il avait produites en 1990 et qui etaient infes­tees-ou soupconnees de l'etre-par la souche du virus Y de la pomme de terre responsable de la necrose des nervures du tabac, ou lorsque l'inspecteur lui a donne l'ordre de le faire; et que la disposition, notamment par destruction, cause au producteur une perte qu'il n'est pas tenu d'assumer selon le present reglement, le ministre peut, s'il recoit du producteur une demande d'indemnisation au plus tard le 1" aoilt 1991, ordonner que lui soit versee pour ces pommes de terre de semence une indemnite dont le montant ne depasse pas :
a) s'il s'agit de pommes de terre de semence Pre-Elite, 15 960 $ l'hectare;
b) s'il s'agit de pommes de terre de semence Elite I, 8 800 $ l'hectare;
c) s'il s'agit de pommes de terre de semence Elite II, 8 000 $ l'hectare;
d) s'il s'agit de pommes de terre de semence Elite HI, 3 400 $ l'hectare;
e) s'il s'agit de pommes de terre de semence Fondation, 2 300 $ l'hectare;
s'il s'agit de pommes de terre de semence Certifiee, 1 900 $ l'hectare.
(2) Les pommes de terre de semence pour lesquelles le producteur peut etre indemnise en application du paragra­phe (1) sont celles dont it dispose, notamment par destruc­tion, pour run des motifs suivants :
(b) of the Atlantic variety that is the progeny of seed potatoes grown on Prince Edward Island in 1989;
(c) from a potato field on Prince Edward Island that, in either 1989 or 1990 was located within 200 metres of a Foundation seed potato plot or a Certified seed potato plot in which potatoes of the Atlantic variety were grown; or
(d) from a potato field located within 200 metres of any potato field infested with the pest referred to in subsection (1).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the number of hectares of seed potatoes in respect of which a grower who has produced seed potatoes in 1990 may be compensated under subsection (1) is
(a) in the case of a grower who has produced seed potatoes in 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of hectares determined by the formula
A x C
B
where
A is the aggregate of the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced and sold by the grower as seed potatoes and the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced and used by the grower for the grower's own use as seed potatoes in those three years,
B is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced by the grower in those three years, and
C is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1990;
(b) in the case of a grower who has produced seed potatoes in 1988 and 1989, the number of hectares deter­mined by the formula
DxC where
D is the aggregate of the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced and sold by the grower as seed potatoes and the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced and used by the grower for the grower's own use as seed potatoes in those two years,
E is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced by the grower in those two years, and
C is the nun er of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1990;
(c) in the case of a grower who has produced seed potatoes in 1989, the number of hectares determined by the formula
FxCE
G
where
a) elles sont infestees par le parasite vise au paragraphe (1);
b) elles sont de la variety Atlantique issue de pommes de terre de semence cultivees dans Pile-du-Prince-Edouard en 1989;
c) elles proviennent d'un champ de pommes de terre de l'Ile-du-Prince-Edouard qui, en 1989 ou en 1990, etait situê dans un rayon de 200 metres d'une parcelle de pom­mes de terre de semence Fondation ou d'une parcelle de pommes de terre de semence Certifiee, oil des pommes de terre de la variety Atlantique êtaient cultivêes;
d) elles proviennent d'un champ de pommes de terre situe dans un rayon de 200 metres d'un champ de pommes de terre infeste par le parasite vise au paragraphe (1).
(3) Sous reserve du paragraphe (4), le nombre d'hectares de pommes de terre de semence pour lequel un producteur qui a produit des pommes de terre de semence en 1990 peut etre indemnise en application du paragraphe (1) est :
a) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui a produit des pom­mes de terre de semence en 1987, en 1988 et en 1989, le nombre d'hectares etabli par la formule suivante :
A x C
B
ou :
A represente la somme du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites et vendues comme telles et du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites et utilisees comme telles
des fins personnelles pendant ces trois annees,
B le nombre total d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites pendant ces trois annees,
C le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1990;
b) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui a produit des pom­mes de terre de semence en 1988 et en 1989, le nombre d'hectares etabli par la formule suivante
DxC E
ou :
D represente la somme du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites et vendues comme telles et du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites et utilisees comme telles
des fins personnelles pendant ces deux annees,
E le nombre total d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites pendant ces deux annees,
C le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1990;
c) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui a produit des pom­mes de terre de semence en 1989, le nombre d'hectares etabli par la formule suivante
FxC
G
on :
F is the aggregate of the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced and sold by the grower as seed potatoes and the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced and used by the grower for the grower's own use as seed potatoes in 1989,
G is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1989, and
C is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1990; or
(d) in the case of a grower who has produced seed potatoes only in 1990, the aggregate of the number of hec­tares of seed potatoes, produced by the grower, that the grower contracted to sell or sold as seed potatoes in 1990 or 1991, or both, and the number of hectares of seed potatoes planted by the grower as seed potatoes in 1990 for the grower's own use.
(4) The number of hectares determined under any of paragraphs (3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) shall, where applicable, be reduced by the number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced and sold by the grower as seed potatoes in 1990 or 1991, or both.
18.33 (1) Subject to section 18.35, where the Minister or an inspector prohibits or restricts the movement, for propa­gation purposes, of seed potatoes that are infested or are sus­pected of being infested with the pest referred to in subsec­tion 18.32(1) and the prohibition or restriction results in a loss to a grower for which the grower is not required by these Regulations to be responsible, the Minister may,, where the Minister receives an application for compensation from the grower not later than August 1, 1991, order com­pensation to be paid to the grower in respect of the seed potatoes, in an amount not exceeding the appropriate amount per hectare set out in paragraphs 18.32(1)(a) to (f).
(2) Subject to subsection (3), where a grower who has produced seed potatoes in 1990 is prohibited or restricted from moving seed potatoes referred to in subsection (1) from an affected area to a person in any other place in Canada for propagation purposes, the number of hectares of seed potatoes in respect of which the grower may be compensated under subsection (1) is
(a) in the case of a grower who has sold seed potatoes, produced by the grower, from an affected area to a person in any other place in Canada in 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of hectares determined by the formula
HxC B
where
H is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced in an affected area by the grower and sold as seed potatoes by the grower from the affected area to a person in any other place in Canada during those three years,
F represente la somme du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites et vendues comme telles et du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites et utilisees comme telles a des fins personnelles en 1989,
G le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1989,
C le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1990;
d) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui n'a produit des pom­mes de terre de semence qu'en 1990, la somme du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence produites par lui qu'il s'est engage par contrat a vendre ou qu'il a ven­dues comme telles en 1990 ou en 1991, ou pendant ces deux annees, et du nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a plantees comme telles en 1990 a des fins personnelles.
(4) Le nombre d'hectares etabli selon les alineas (3)a), b), c) ou d) doit etre reduit, le cas echeant, du nombre d'hecta­res des pommes de terre de semence que le producteur a pro­duites et vendues comme telles en 1990 ou en 1991, ou pen­dant ces deux annees.
18.33 (1) Sous reserve de l'article 18.35, lorsque le minis­tre ou l'inspecteur interdit ou restreint le transport des pom­mes de terre de semence destinees a la multiplication qui sont infestees-ou soupgonnées de l'etre-par le parasite vise au paragraphe 18.32(1) et que cette mesure d'interdic­tion ou de restriction cause a un producteur une perte qu'il n'est pas tenu d'assumer selon le present reglement, le minis­tre peut, s'il recoit du producteur une demande d'indemnisa­tion au plus tard le ler aoilt 1991, ordonner que lui soit ver­see pour ces pommes de terre de semence une indemnite dont le montant par hectare ne depasse pas le montant applicable indique aux alineas 18.32(1)a) a j).
(2) Sous reserve du paragraphe (3), lorsque le producteur qui a produit des pommes de terre de semence en 1990 est vise par une mesure interdisant ou restreignant le transport, d'un endroit touché a des personnes d'un autre lieu au Canada, des pommes de terre de semence destinêes a la mul­tiplication visees au paragraphe (1), le nombre d'hectares de pommes de terre de semence pour lequel it peut etre indem­nise en application du paragraphe (1) est :
a) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui a vendu en 1987, en 1988 et en 1989 des pommes de terre de semence produi­tes par lui et provenant d'un endroit touché a des person­nes d'un autre lieu au Canada, le nombre d'hectares etabli par la formule suivante :
HxC B
on :
H représente le nombre total d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites dans un endroit tou­ché et vendues comme telles en provenance de l'endroit touché a des personnes d'un autre lieu au Canada pen­dant ces trois annees,
B is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced by the grower in those three years, and
C is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1990;
(b) in the case of a grower who has sold seed potatoes, produced by the grower, from an affected area to a person in any other place in Canada in 1988 and 1989, the num­ber of hectares determined by the formula
I x C E
where
I is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced in an affected area by the grower and sold as seed potatoes by the grower from the affected area to a per­son in any other place in Canada during those two years,
E is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced by the grower in those two years, and
C is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1990;
(c) in the case of a grower who has sold seed potatoes, produced by the grower, from an affected area to a person in any other place in Canada in 1989, the number of hec­tares determined by the formula
J xC G
where
J is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced in an affected area by the grower and sold as seed potatoes by the grower from the affected area to a person in any other place in Canada during 1989,
G is the number'of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1989, and
C is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1990; or
(d) in the case of a grower who has produced seed potatoes only in 1990, the number of hectares of seed potatoes, produced by the grower, that the grower con­tracted to sell or sold as seed potatoes in 1990 or 1991, or both, to a person in a place in Canada other than an affected area.
(3) Then wnber of hectares determined under any of paragraphs ((a), (b), (c) and (d) shall, where applicable, be reduced by the number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced and sold by the grower as seed potatoes in 1990 or 1991, or both, to a person in a place in Canada other than an affected area.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), the movement of seed potatoes from an affected area to any other place in Canada does not include the movement of seed potatoes within the affected area.
B le nombre total d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites pendant ces trois annees,
C le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1990;
b) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui a vendu en 1988 et en 1989 des pommes de terre de semence produites par lui et provenant d'un endroit touché a des personnes d'un autre lieu au Canada, le nombre d'hectares etabli par la formule suivante :
I x C E
ou :
I represente le nombre total d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites dans un endroit tou­ché et vendues comme telles en provenance de l'endroit touché a des personnes d'un autre lieu au Canada pen­dant ces deux annees,
E le nombre total d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites pendant ces deux annees,
C le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1990;
c) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui a vendu en 1989 des pommes de terre de semence produites par lui et prove­nant d'un endroit touché a des personnes d'un autre lieu au Canada, le nombre d'hectares etabli par la formule sui­vante :
J xC G
ou :
J represente le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites dans un endroit touché et ven­dues comme telles en provenance de l'endroit touché a des personnes d'un autre lieu au Canada en 1989,
G le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1989,
C le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence qu'il a produites en 1990;
d) soit, s'il s'agit d'un producteur qui n'a produit des porn­mes de terre de semence qu'en 1990, le nombre d'hectares des pommes de terre de semence produites par lui qu'il s'est engage par contrat a vendre ou qu'il a vendues comme telles en 1990 ou en 1991, ou pendant ces deux annees, a des personnes d'un lieu au Canada autre qu'un endroit touché.
(3) Le nombre d'hectares etabli selon les alineas (2)a), b), c) ou d) doit etre reduit, le cas echeant, du nombre d'hecta­res des pommes de terre de semence que le producteur a pro­duites et vendues comme telles en 1990 ou en 1991, ou pen­dant ces deux annees, a des personnes d'un lieu au Canada autre qu'un endroit touche.
(4) Pour l'application du paragraphe (2), le transport de pommes de terre de semence d'un endroit touché a tout autre lieu au Canada ne comprend pas le transport de pom­mes de terre de semence a l'interieur de l'endroit touche.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), where a grower who has produced seed potatoes in 1990 is prohibited or restricted from moving seed potatoes referred to in subsection (1) from an affected area in Canada to a person in the United States for propagation purposes, the number of hectares of seed potatoes in respect of which the grower may be compensated under subsection (1) is
(a) in the case of a grower who has sold seed potatoes, produced by the grower, from an affected area to a person in the United States in 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of hectares determined by the formula
KxC where
K is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced in an affected area by the grower and sold as seed potatoes by the grower from the affected area to a person in the United States in those three years,
B is the total number of hectares of seed potatoes pro­duced by the grower in those three years, and
C is the number of hectares of seed potatoes produced by the grower in 1990;
(b) in the case of a grower who has sold seed potatoes, produced by the grower, from an affected area to a person in the United States in 1988 and 1989, the number of hec­tares determined by the formula
LxCB
(5) Sous reserve du paragraphe (6), lorsque le producteur qui a produit des pommes de terre de semence en 1990 est vise par une mesure interdisant ou restreignant le transport des pommes de terre de semence destinees a la multiplica­tion visees au paragraphe (1) en provenance d'un endroit touché au