Milk Surveillance, Roundup Cancer Claim and an English Test for a Teacher
Milk rules in BC
In British Columbia, it’s illegal to produce milk and sell it to anyone other than the Milk Marketing Board.
The Milk Marketing Board sets wholesale prices, intended to guarantee a profit for milk farmers, and sets quotas for how much milk a farmer can sell.
Farmers who produce more milk than their quota can be required to dump it down the drain.
As a result of this system, consumers in British Columbia pay 25 – 30% more for milk than it costs in the United States.
Since 2022, milk prices have been increased three times and retail prices have risen by 15%.
To preserve this system the Milk Marketing Board conducts surveillance of farmers to ensure they don’t try to sell any extra milk.
In the case discussed the Milk Marketing Board conducted 19 days of surveillance on a single farmer and determined that he had been selling extra milk to someone else.
The Milk Marketing Board imposed a $195,184 fine on the farmer and then tried to cancel his quota three days after he filed an appeal of the decision.
On appeal to the BC Farm and Industry Review Board, the fine was reduced to $3,000 and the application to cancel the farmer’s milk quota was denied. The farmer was ordered to pay $33,000 to cover the cost of the investigation and surveillance.
Unhappy with this outcome, the Milk Marketing Board appealed again and was successful in having the case sent back to the Review Board to consider a higher fine.
Roundup lawsuit in connection to cancer
Also on the show, a lawsuit alleging that Roundup caused a man’s cancer is discussed.
The man’s legal argument is a novel one: he has sued three retailers who sold him Roundup over a 30-year time period based on an alleged breach of the Sale of Goods Act.
The Sale of Goods Act requires goods to be fit for their intended purpose and the man is alleging that if the herbicide caused his cancer it didn’t meet this requirement.
The man suing the retailers filed a request to have the case decided by a jury. This was opposed by the defendant retailers, who alleged that the case involved a complicated legal question and that the scientific and medical evidence would be too complicated for a jury. The judge hearing the case agreed with this argument so the issues will be decided by the judge alone, without a jury.
Ontario teacher refuses English test
Finally, human rights case involving a teacher from Ontario who applied for a license to work in BC is discussed.
Following the teacher’s application, concerns arose with respect to his ability to communicate in English arose and he was asked to take an English exam. He refused to take the test, alleging that it amounted to discrimination based on his ethnic origin.
The human rights complaint and now two appeals have rejected the teacher’s claims on the basis that there was no evidence the requirement to take the English exam was motivated by his ethnic origin rather than a concern about his language proficiency.
Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 10:30 am. It’s also available on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.