environmental law - Canadian Organic Growers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION REJECTED AS CONTAMINATION SOURCE FOR ORGANICS In Levine v. Minister of Industry and Eastlink, 2009 FC 1297, the Federal Court rejected an organic garlic farmer’s application for an injunction preventing the operation of a new cell tower adjacent to his 20 acre organic plot in Nova Scotia. The Applicant claimed that “radiation of his crops, his seeds for replanting and his land will preclude him from marketing his product as organic and natural.” The court found that Health Canada had established that radiation from the tower to the Applicant’s home would be 782,518 time lower than the safe limit for humans established by the Safety Code 6: Guideline Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3KHz to 300 GHz. The court found that “the Applicant has not adduced any evidence regarding radiation levels … there is no basis upon which to find that there will be radiation damage to the crops and the land.” The Respondent also led evidence that the chair of the <strong>Canadian</strong> General Standards Board Committee on <strong>Organic</strong> Agriculture confirmed that there was nothing in the standards in relation to “hertzian wave contamination.” The court was not overly impressed by the Applicant’s response that “it is irrelevant whether a certification body would certify his product as ‘organic’ notwithstanding the tower.”
INCOME TAX TREATMENT OF ORGANIC PRODUCERS MAY BE SPECIAL In Stackhouse v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 146 the Tax Court of Canada sided with an organic farmer in her fight with the Canada Revenue Agency to deduct all of her farm losses against all of her other income. The Minister of National Revenue had invoked s-s. 31(1) of the Income Tax Act in restricting the farmer’s losses, saying that her chief source of income was not farming. The farmer split her time between medical practice and farming. She had significant income from her medical practice, and significant losses from her farming. The Tax Court took into account that the appellant operated the largest organic farm in New Brunswick, with 195 head of cattle, and 450 cleared acres. The appellant called an expert witness to provide evidence on the strong market for organic products, the detailed planning established for organic operations on the Appellant’s farm, and that for “farmers who want to get involved in organic farming … the process is more complicated than for conventional farming … organic farmers have to adhere to a very strict protocol … organic farming is referred to as a knowledge-based system … Quick-fix remedies are not as readily available to organic growers as they would be to conventional farmers.” The Tax Court found that “given the fact that organic farming may involve a longer process before results are seen … [and] the appellant’s capital, time and labour were focused on the farm, she was permitted her farm losses notwithstanding the farm income was negative for the years in question.” The court found there to be a reasonable expectation of profit from the farm. In Finch v. The Queen, 2000 CanLII 179 (TCC) the court likewise found that “the Appellant was in fact starting up an organic grain and a Shorthorn cow-calf operation … Therefore the Appellant is entitled to a start up period” when considering reasonable expectation of profit.
Page 1 and 2: ENVIRONMENTAL LAW - RIGHTS AND DUTI
Page 3 and 4: FED-PROV DIVISION OF POWERS AND THE
Page 5 and 6: GOVERNMENT REGULATION: WHEN IS AN O
Page 7 and 8: … THEN IT’S A CHICKEN. The cour
Page 9 and 10: NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT MUST BE GIVEN
Page 11: CHALLENGING FOR ORGANIC PRODUCERS T
Page 15: FURTHER READING www.canlii.com - fr

environmental law - Canadian Organic Growers

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?