Category: Uncategorized

In this dispute, the arbitrator has determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the Claimant’s agreement to accept the findings from the private inspection or the claimed deduction agreement. As a result, these survey reports cannot be used to assess whether the product adhered to the Good Arrival Guidelines upon arrival, nor will they be used to establish a fair return. Additionally, the arbitrator decided that the claimed deduction agreement does not apply.

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 agreement to use private inspection reports and the appropriate compensation for each load.

The arbitrator concluded that there was insufficient evidence supporting the Respondent’s alleged agreement to utilize private inspection services. The arbitrator found that the private inspections conducted for the Respondent failed to meet DRC’s Good Inspection Guidelines. Since the private inspections did not meet these guidelines, the arbitrator decided not to consider these reports to determine a fair return.

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

CASE: DRC FILE #20648 – PARTIES DOMICILED – UNITED STATES AND CANADA

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Two shipments of Flame grapes and Summer Royal grapes were sent to the Respondent by the Claimant:

1. First Shipment: Shipped on June 8th, 2020, with Invoice #2070130 and PO #2060277. This shipment contained 1,440 boxes of Flame grapes at USD$17.10 per box and 540 boxes of Summer Royal grapes at USD$14.10 per box, plus a USD$30.00 charge for a temperature recorder. The total invoice amount was USD$32,268.00.

On June 11th, 2020, a private inspection was performed on the 1,440 boxes of Flame grapes associated with Invoice #2070130. The inspection report, delivered to the Claimant on the same day, indicated the following findings: 3% decay, 1% brown berries, 9% soft fruit, 2% split fruit, 4% bruises, and 8% shattered fruit.

2. Second Shipment: Shipped on June 8th, 2020, with Invoice #2070131 and PO #2060356. This shipment included 1,439 boxes of Flame grapes at USD$17.10 per box and 540 boxes of Summer Royal grapes at USD$14.10 per box, for a total invoice amount of USD$32,220.90.

On June 15th, 2020, a private inspection was performed on the 1,439 boxes of Flame grapes related to Invoice #2070131. The findings indicated: 2% decay, 2% brown berries, 11% soft fruit, 2% split fruit, 5% bruises, and 4% shattered fruit. This report was also delivered to the Claimant on the same day.

On June 23rd, 2020, the Respondent emailed the Claimant regarding a proposed return sale for USD$9.10 per box on the 1439 boxes of Flame grapes linked to Invoice #2070131. On June 26th, 2020, the Respondent emailed the Claimant about a proposed return sale for USD$9.10 per box on the 1440 boxes of Flame grapes associated with Invoice #2070130.

On July 3rd, 2020, the Respondent made a direct deposit payment of USD$41,456.90 to the Claimant for Invoices #2070130 and #2070131. This payment was short by USD$23,032.00 based on the original invoices.

The Claimant is seeking payment for the outstanding balance of USD$23,032.00, along with a USD$2,500.00 filing fee. The Respondent argued that private inspections were accepted in previous transactions and that the inspection reports were sent to the Claimant without any indication that these reports were not accepted.

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.

Welcome New Members!

From July 1st to July 31st, 2025, the DRC welcomed the following 16 new members:

BIG LEAGUE FOOD COMPANY WHOLESALE INC., ON, Canada
CAWSTON COLD STORAGE LTD., BC, Canada
EXELLAR TRANSPORTATION INC., ON, Canada
FLS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LIMITED, QC, Canada
FORDEL MARKETING, LLC, NV, United States
HURTANAVA PRODUCE LLC, TX, United States
JV FRESH PRODUCE (A d/b/a of 16928820 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
KR TRADING (A d\b\a Eun Jun Kwon), BC, Canada
MID-RIVER TRADING (A d/b/a of 2545241 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
NILE MAPLE TRADERS INCORPORATED, NB, Canada
OYAY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ON, Canada
PANORAMA PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
PHOENIX GROUP LOGISTICS (A d/b/a of 2153248 Alberta Inc.), AB, Canada
SMART-LINK HOMEWARE PRODUCTS INC., ON, Canada
MN BUSINESS INC., QC, Canada
REIMER’S FRUITS PRODUCTIONS (Faisant également affaire sous, QC, Canada

DRC Membership Change In Status

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

AFRICA HAVEN INC., QC, Canada
AGRIKO TRADING LIMITED, BC, Canada
CARIBBEAN FRESH, ON, Canada
CULTIVARES SAC, Lima, Peru
FINE TECH LEATHER LTD. (Also d/b/a AFN Trading Company), AB, Canada
FRESH VEGETABLES ARE S.A. DE C.V. (También haciendo negocios), Puebla, Mexico
GREEN SUN SERVICES INC. (Also d/b/a Green Sun Services), ON, Canada
GROCERIZZA INC., ON, Canada
KREMERMAN FOODS (A d/b/a of 9504303 Canada Inc.), AB, Canada
NISHAN TRANSPORT INC., QC, Canada
OPERADORA COMERCIAL DATI S DE RL DE CV (También haciendo neg), Michoacan, Mexico
POC HOLDINGS CORPORATION (Also d/b/a POC Trading), BC, Canada
SHETUR CORPORATION (Also d/b/a Shetur), ON, Canada
SOAGRO CORP., ON, Canada
SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA DE VENTA EN COMUN CUPANDA. S.C.L., Michoacan, Mexico
TAAMAY EXPORT MEXICO S.A.P. I DE C.V. (Also d/b/a TAAMAY), Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico
VIANDES ET VOLAILLES OMEGA (A d/b/a of 9347-4179 Quebec Inc., QC, Canada
YETI REFRIGERATED TRANSPORT INC., AB, Canada

Expulsion Notice

KREMERMAN FOODS (A d/b/a of 9504303 Canada Inc.), was expelled from the DRC membership effective July 18, 2025, for not meeting its debts as they came due and failing to provide information requested.

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 details regarding a change in status, please get in touch with the office.

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 Claimant’s acceptance of the Respondent’s return and the correct return amount based on inspection results and current market value.

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 the Arbitrator and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is as administrator of 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

This arbitration decision involves a dispute between a U.S.-based Claimant (seller) in Pennsylvania and a Canada-based Respondent (buyer) in Montreal over two shipments of Colossal Yellow Onions. The key issues were whether the Claimant accepted the Respondent’s return offer and what constituted an appropriate settlement based on inspection results and market value. According to the findings and the DRC Rules, the Arbitrator concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that the Claimant accepted the return amount offered by the Respondent for only one of the two shipments. For the second shipment, however, the Arbitrator found that the Respondent did not provide enough evidence to justify the proposed return. Additionally, the inspection results did not support the amount offered for the return of the second shipment.

Below is a concise analysis of the case, its implications, and key takeaways for similar international commercial disputes.

CASE: DRC FILE #20535 – PARTIES DOMICILED – UNITED STATES AND CANADA

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The Claimant, based in Pennsylvania, sold two loads of Colossal Yellow Onions to the Respondent located in Montreal.

The first load consisted of 850 bags, each weighing 50 lbs, sold FOB Idaho for USD 7.25 (invoice #50432 or PO 60298). The product was shipped on December 11 and arrived on December 15.

A CFIA inspection was requested and performed on December 16, revealing 9% total condition defects. This included 1% cuts, 2% translucent scales, 1% watery scales, and 5% decay.

The second load also contained 850 bags of 50 lbs Colossal Yellow Onions, sold FOB Idaho for USD 8.00 (invoice #50433 or PO #60308). This product was shipped on December 18 and arrived on December 20.

A CFIA inspection was requested on December 21 and performed on December 23, showing 10% total condition defect comprising 3% translucent scales and 7% decay.

After the inspections were completed, the Respondent emailed the results to the Claimant’s sales representative. On December 23, the Claimant replied, asking if the Respondent would like to repack the product and whether they were interested in settling the matter. The Respondent responded the same day, stating that they could only settle after selling the product. However, due to the significant decay (as high as 25%), they believed they could only recover the cost of freight. The Respondent followed up with a phone call to emphasize the limited resources available for selling the product. It was suggested again that the Claimant take back the product to minimize losses for the grower.

On December 27, the Claimant emailed the Respondent to inquire about the returns for the onions.

On December 31, the Respondent replied, indicating that there would be a remittance of USD 1.00 per bag, all-inclusive, along with revised invoices for both loads, allowing the Claimant to issue payment.

On January 8, the Claimant emailed the Respondent, advising that given the inspections, market value, and damages, the return should be between USD 5.00 and USD 6.00 FOB, and they would likely not accept anything less. The Respondent replied on the same day, stating that the product was out of grade and was sold to minimize losses at the best possible price, considering the percentage of decay present in both loads. They confirmed that the USD 1.00 payment had been made in full and that no additional funds would be provided.

On January 23, the Respondent received an email from the Claimant stating that the grower had accepted a return of USD 1.00 per bag for PO#60308 and had created a credit memo, which was included in that email.

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

After considering all of the arguments and submissions from both parties, the Arbitrator focused only on the relevant points that influenced their conclusions and the resolution of the dispute. Any facts or arguments that were not addressed in the Arbitrator’s reasoning did not affect the conclusion of their Arbitral Award.

• Both Invoice #50432 and Invoice #50433 pertain to sales transactions. Since there is no other written agreement between the parties, the DRC rules are applicable, as both parties were members of the DRC when the dispute arose.
• It appears that the Claimant was acting as a commission merchant on behalf of a grower regarding each of the sales in question.
• There is no evidence indicating that the parties agreed on a specific grade standard. Therefore, the DRC’s Good Arrival Standards apply. Under these standards, the allowable decay for onions is 4%, and the product in question exceeded this tolerance level.
• Specifically concerning Invoice #50433/PO #60308, the evidence shows that on January 23, 2020, the parties agreed to a return of USD 1.00 per bag.
• Regarding Invoice #50432/PO #60298, there is no evidence that the parties reached an agreement on a reduced price, nor is there any indication that the level of decay merited a price reduction to USD 1.00 per bag. The decay was 7%, “mostly also showing mold.”
• It is the Respondent’s responsibility to provide evidence to support its returns. However, the Respondent did not supply any accounting for the Arbitrator to evaluate the sales, timing, and prices.
• As a consequence, the Arbitrator rejected the Respondent’s return on the products corresponding to Invoice #50432/PO #60298.
• According to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website, the prices for the week of December 16, 2019, for comparable conventional onions were:

• The Claimant’s damages claim in this arbitration is USD 6.50 FOB per bag (less than the USD 7.25 original price), which is well below the market prices available for a comparable product at No. 1 grade in Canada in the corresponding time frame.
• Consequently, the total price for Invoice #50432/PO #60298 is determined to be USD 5,525.00. Since USD 850.00 has already been paid, a balance of USD 4,675 is still owed by the Respondent.
• Further, Claimant’s invoices provide that the buyer shall pay all costs of collection. Accordingly, the Respondent is required to pay to the Claimant the USD 600 DRC filing fee.

ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION:

Based on the Summary of Arbitrator’s Analysis and Reasoning, the Arbitrator makes the following decisions:

1. Claimant’s claim regarding Invoice #50433 / PO #60308 is DISMISSED.
2. The Respondent did not provide an accounting or proof of claim for Invoice #50432 / PO #60298.
3. The Respondent failed to make the payment for Invoice #50432 / PO #60298.
4. Respondent must pay Claimant USD 4,675.00 in general damages and USD 600.00 for the DRC filing fee by August 29, 2020.
5. All other requests that were not granted are DISMISSED.

DRC COMMENTS:

In the produce industry, if a buyer decides to claim damages after receiving a product in a deteriorated condition, it is the buyer’s responsibility to explain how they arrived at their decision for the return. While an itemized account of sales is only required in consignment transactions, providing an account of sales is the most common method when claiming damages resulting from a breach of contract or a product received in deteriorated condition.

When submitting an account of sales, it is advisable to present an itemized account of sales. This should include the date, amount, and price for each sale related to the load in question, after deducting expenses such as freight costs, inspections, brokerage fees, and any additional expenses agreed upon by both parties. An itemized account of sales not only illustrates net returns but also demonstrates whether the product was moved promptly.

If an account of sales is unavailable, be aware that there are alternative methods used to assess the fair value of the product. One approach may involve reducing the invoice value based on the percentage of defects identified in the federal inspection, although this may not always accurately reflect actual losses.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.

Receiver Duties:

• Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.10

Articles:

• Dealing with a Bad Load? Your Options as a Buyer/Receiver Revealed
• Discussed, Understood and Agreed (DUA)
• Claiming Damages: The Power of an Itemized Account of Sales

Welcome New Members

From June 1 until June 30, 2025, the DRC welcomed the following 22 new members:

9457-9885 QUÉBEC INC., QC, Canada
AMPLE PRODUCE INC. (Also d/b/a Ample Harvest), ON, Canada
ANC TRADING LTD., AB, Canada
CANA PACKING INC., NS, Canada
DEN BOER FAMILY FARM INC., ON, Canada
DROST FARMS LTD., AB, Canada
ECKERT COLD STORAGE COMPANY, CA, United States
EVERSUNNY FOOD LTD., BC, Canada
JOVO & KRISH IMPORT AND EXPORT INC., ON, Canada
JUST AVOCADO PRODUCE MICHOACAN S.A. DE C.V. (Faisant également affaire sous Avocadox), Michoacan, Mexico
KEY WEST EXPRESS LTD., BC, Canada
MANGAL CAPITAL INC., BC, Canada
NILE GARDENS INC., ON, Canada
PROCESOS AGROINDUSTRIALES S.A., Lima, Peru
QUALITEA BUBBLE TEA CANADA DISTRIBUTION INC., ON, Canada
RVR AGRO S.R.L., Lima, Peru
S&S PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada
SHANI, ON, Canada
VIRSA TASTES (A d/b/a of Jaswinder Singh), ON, Canada
WILLOW CREEK COLONY LTD. (Also d/b/a Willowcreek Warehouse), MB, Canada
XATLANTIC ENTERPRISES INC., ON, Canada
YYY FOODS PROCESSING INC., BC, Canada

To view a complete list of active members, click here.

DRC Membership Change in Status

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

1350797 ONTARIO LTD., ON, Canada
ALINE PACKAGING LTD., BC, Canada
ANAVARA LIMITED (Also d/b/a JusFres), BC, Canada
BORSELLINO & SON GRAPES IMPORTING & WINE AGENCY INC., ON, Canada
CITRUS SAM INC., ON, Canada
D.O.T LOGISTICS INC., AB, Canada
DI VAIN ENTERPRISES (A d/b/a of Quetzal Silva Torres), BC, Canada
ELI LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS INC., ON, Canada
FALCONS GLOBAL CORPORATION, ON, Canada
FRESHFUSION IMPORT INC., ON, Canada
GLOBAL TRADERS CANADA LTD., ON, Canada
GREENHILL PRODUCE (THAMESVILLE) LTD., ON, Canada
GRUPO COMERCIAL CAMPO VERDE SAC, Lima, Peru
GUJARAT FOODS AND SPICES INC., ON, Canada
Gujarati Mart (A d/b/a of Bhaveshbhai Limbachiya), AB, Canada
IQBAL HALAL FOODS INC., ON, Canada
ITOH FRUITS INC. (Also d/b/a Itoh Fruits), ON, Canada
JIRSTREK FRUITS LTÉE, QC, Canada
JTS FOOD CORPORATION, BC, Canada
KALIGA BAZAAR (A d/b/a of 2704097 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
L & L GARDENS INC., ON, Canada
MEADOW VALLEY GARDEN CENTRE LTD., ON, Canada
MILO 8 INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO. LTD., ON, Canada
PACIFIC SUN DISTRIBUTING, INC, CA, United States
PANORAMA PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
ROYAL SAVANNA INCORPORATED, ON, Canada
SENSIENT NATURAL EXTRACTION INC., BC, Canada
SHIVANI SALES INC., MB, Canada
SHREE SUPERMARKET INC., BC, Canada
SKOTIDAKIS GOAT FARM (A d/b/a of 1048547 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
TOMATO TOWN PRODUCE COMPANY LTD., ON, Canada
TUKTIN INC. (Also d/b/a ASK Fresh Foods), AB, Canada
VARAHI FOODS AND DISTRIBUTIONS LTD., AB, Canada
XALISCO PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

For details regarding a change in status, please get in touch with the office.

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

About 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 fast-paced world of produce shipping, maintaining the cold chain and properly documenting temperature control from origin to destination are crucial to prevent disputes. A recent transportation case handled by the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) highlights the importance of these practices.

A shipper sold blueberries to a buyer on a Free on Board (FOB) basis. The Bill of Lading (BoL) indicated the product was loaded at temperatures ranging from 32°F to 34°F, and the reefer was to be set at 34°F in continuous mode. Upon arrival, the blueberries were found to have warm pulp temperatures and were in poor condition. A federal inspection was performed, which corroborated that the product failed to meet DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines.

To evaluate the case, DRC’s Trading Assistance staff requested the following information: the BOL, loading checklist, loading pattern, the temperature recorder readout, reefer unit download, record of pulp temperatures upon arrival and the federal inspection report.

Here’s what was discovered:

1. BoL: The BoL indicated a required transit temperature of 33°F, and the actual pulp temperature at loading was 34°F. It also showed the driver signed the BOL without any notations and no indication that the driver took pulp temperatures during or after loading.

2. Loading Checklist: A loading checklist was provided and signed by the driver, documenting pulp temperatures between 32°F and 34°F.

3. Temperature Recorder Readout: This document indicated that the product was subject to warmer-than-desirable temperatures during transit.

4. Reefer Unit Download: Although the reefer unit was set correctly, the readings between the Supply Air Column (SAT) and the Return Air Column (RAT) suggested the reefer unit was having problems maintaining the desired set temperature. The SAT readings ranged from 28°F to 38°F, while RAT readings were consistently around 36°F. This discrepancy suggested that the reefer was acting appropriately, but it was not able to maintain the desired temperature. A factor that could have contributed to this situation was the Outside Ambient Temperature (AAT), which during the first two transit days showed weather conditions reached temperatures above 100°F.

5. Federal Inspection: The inspection was promptly conducted with a report indicating that the pulp temperatures were above normal. This also indicated that the blueberries were received in poor condition, with defects associated with the product having been exposed to warmer temperatures than desired. It also reported that the air chute was intact.

While the carrier argued that the product was loaded warm, no evidence was provided to support this claim. The DRC determined that this was most likely a transportation claim based on the evidence showing that the carrier was unable to maintain the desired set temperature during transit.

This case highlights the importance of keeping proper temperature records at shipping point, during transit, and upon arrival. Shippers, carriers, and receivers all share the responsibility for maintaining a proper cold chain from origin to destination.

Clear communication and diligent record-keeping can prevent disputes and protect the integrity of all parties involved, ultimately leading to better outcomes.

—

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.

Welcome new members!

We are delighted to welcome the following members who joined the DRC in May 2025.

1000971951 ONTARIO INC., ON, Canada
ABUSEEDOU WORLD FRESH INC. (Also d/b/a Abuseedo World Fresh), ON, Canada
AVON GROUP LTD., ON, Canada
BEAUTY 4 ASHES MARKET INC. (Also d/b/a Beauty 4 Ashes), BC, Canada
BULK AND BLOOM DISTRIBUTION INC., ON, Canada
CERTITUDE AFRO DIVINE STOQUE INC., QC, Canada
COLOMBIAN FRUITS & VEGETABLES (A d/b/a of Paulo Gaviria), MB, Canada
DALIA’S FARM (A d/b/a of Akram Mohamed Nagib Elkhabaty), BC, Canada
EAST COAST TRADING IMPORT, EXPORT AND LOGISTICS, INC. (Also d/b/a East Coast Farms and Vegetables), FL, United States
EINAI IMPORT-EXPORT INC., QC, Canada
FARM HOUSE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES LLC., TX, United States
FRB LOGISTIQUE INC., QC, Canada
HUIXIN FOOD CORP., ON, Canada
LES FERMES ÉMILE GARIÉPY INC., QC, Canada
MEXI/CANA FRESH QUALITY PRODUCE CORPORATION, BC, Canada
NAB GLOBAL SERVICES (A d/b/a of Joshua Agyemang Badu), AB, Canada
ODECO TRADING (A d/b/a of 6396577 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
PRIMA GROUP CANADA INC., ON, Canada
SHABAB AL AWEER FOODSTUFF TRADING LLC. (Also d/b/a Fruits de la Vallée International/Valley Fruits International), QC, Canada
SHARUTHIE GREEN FIELD INC., ON, Canada
URVIL LOGISTICS INC., BC, Canada
YUKON FRUITSTAND LTD., BC, Canada
1000971951 ONTARIO INC., ON, Canada

To view a complete list of active members, click here.

DRC Membership: change in status

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

9311-3652 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada
ALGCAN IMPORT INC., QC, Canada
ATIARA TRADING INC., ON, Canada
CITRUS PLUS (A d/b/a of Citrus Plus Inc.), CA, United States
CORONA-COLLEGE HEIGHTS ORANGE & LEMON ASSN., CA, United States
EAST COAST GROWERS FAMILY OF FARMS, INC., FL, United States
GEORGE REDIES, BC, Canada
NOSTALGIA INC., AB, Canada
PRIMEORGANIC INC., ON, Canada
VY ISLAND DISTRIBUTORS, ON, Canada

For details regarding a change in status, please get in touch with the office.

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

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

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.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) recommends that its members encourage their trading partners to join the DRC—ensuring direct jurisdiction in a dispute—however we recognize that some companies may choose not to join. This is particularly common among companies based outside North America, where trade standards and mechanisms like DRC and PACA are less familiar or widely used.

However, non-members can still access DRC’s dispute resolution services by including a DRC arbitration clause in their contract or marketing agreement.

How It Works

A DRC arbitration clause allows either party to initiate DRC proceedings in the event of a breach of contract or a dispute. Before formal arbitration begins, both parties can access an informal mediation process at no additional cost. If mediation does not resolve the issue, arbitration can proceed according to DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules.

Sample DRC Arbitration Clause

“Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be submitted to and finally settled by arbitration administered by the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation in accordance with its published rules and procedures. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.”

What If You Don’t Use Written Contracts?

We understand that many produce transactions are conducted without formal written contracts. To address this, DRC offers its members a simple, one-page model contract that includes the arbitration clause. The model contract features only the most common terms and conditions, making it quick and easy to complete.

The reason why only common terms and conditions are used in our model contract is because DRC Trade Standards establish the rights and responsibilities to protect both buyers and sellers by default.

Incorporating the arbitration clause into your agreements provides an additional layer of protection and clarity in your transactions.

Want to Learn More?

Contact our Trading Assistance team for more information about DRC’s arbitration clause and how to implement it in your agreements.

Welcome, new members!

We are delighted to welcome the following members who joined us in April 2025. 

AMNA (A d/b/a of 9488-7726 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
BLACK DEER TRANSPORT INC., ON, Canada
BRIGHTFARMS INC., NY, United States
COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SILA INC. / SILA INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ON, Canada
I M C ENTERPRISES LTD., BC, Canada
JEFFRIES BROS. VEGETABLE GROWERS INC., MB, Canada
KALYAN DEVARA, ON, Canada
KWONG FUNG FOOD PROCESSING FACTORY LTD., BC, Canada
NAERA ENTERPRISES INC. (Also d/b/a Stoke Juice), BC, Canada
NATURE’S CONNECTION INC., ON, Canada
REAL EXOTIC PRODUCE LLC., TX, United States
ROYALTY PRODUCE LTD., ON, Canada
SDH GLOBAL CORP., ON, Canada
SENSE MAKER (A d/b/a 1001090793 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
TRIUNFO TRADING CORP., ON, Canada
UGADI INC., ON, Canada

To view a complete list of active members, click here.

DRC Membership: change in status

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

AREFFAD FOODS (Faisant également affaire sous ABDELHAFID BETTA ), ON, Canada
1 MILL ROAD WINERY LTD., BC, Canada
ALIMENTARUS IMPORT EXPORT (Faisant également affaire sous 9154-0062 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
ALIMENTS AMELYA IMPEX INC., QC, Canada
ALMOCAN MÉDITERRANÉEN INC., QC, Canada
DELFRUTTI ® for DELMONDI IMPORT EXPORT INC., QC, Canada
DEVINE ORGANICS, LLC, CA, United States
DISTRIBUTION VEGIFRUITS INC. / VEGIFRUITS DISTRIBUTION INC., QC, Canada
GUJARATI KITCHEN INC., ON, Canada
IMPORT-EXPORT TRANSPORT, MOH-A-GHI INC. (Faisant également affaire sous MOH-A-GHI), QC, Canada
JIM PANDOL AND COMPANY, INC., CA, United States
KARIM SAGHI, QC, Canada
LADY B, Rabat, Morocco
MALLADI HOLDINGS CORP., SK, Canada
MOBCHER CANADA (A d/b/a of 9397-6439 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
MW (CANADA) FEDERAL ENTERPRISE LTD., BC, Canada
NEW ASIA PRODUCE LTD., ON, Canada
ORGANICGIRL, LLC, CA, United States
SAGE FRUIT COMPANY L.L.C., WA, United States
SDH IMPEX (A d/b/a of Simplified Tek Inc.), ON, Canada
STEVCO (A d/b/a of Grapeman Farms, LP), CA, United States
SUCCESS VALLEY PRODUCE, LLC, CA, United States
TARGET INTERSTATE SYSTEMS, INC., NY, United States
TULIP TRADING AND SERVICES INC., QC, Canada
TUT DISTRIBUTION INC, QC, Canada

For details regarding a change in status, please get in touch with the office.

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

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for fresh produce. The DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless 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 DRC member.

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 do not 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/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.

At the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC), we often receive inquiries from growers and shippers regarding their continued responsibility for the quality and condition of the product until it reaches the final destination, particularly when the sale is made under Free on Board (FOB) terms. The FOB Incoterm is generally followed by a specific destination or port of entry, such as McAllen, TX, Nogales, AZ, or Windsor, ON, among others.

To clarify this, it is essential to understand the concept of “suitable shipping condition” as defined in DRC’s Trading Standards, Section 19, Subsection 24:

“In relation to direct shipments, ‘suitable shipping condition’ means that the commodity, at the time of shipment, is in a condition which, if handled under normal transportation conditions, will ensure delivery without abnormal deterioration at the contract destination agreed upon between the parties. The seller has no responsibility for any deterioration during transit if no specific destination is agreed upon.”

This definition emphasizes the seller’s responsibility for ensuring the commodity is shipped in a condition that guarantees it will arrive without abnormal deterioration at the agreed destination, assuming normal transportation practices are followed.

Key Concepts:

The term “suitable shipping condition,” often referred to as “Good Delivery” or “Good Arrival,” is particularly relevant for FOB transactions involving perishable commodities. It is important to note that certain restrictive terms may modify the standard FOB terms, such as “FOB acceptance final” or “shipping point acceptance final.”
Under standard FOB terms:

• The seller guarantees that the product will meet the agreed-upon quality and condition requirements at the time of shipment.
• The seller also ensures the product will not undergo abnormal deterioration during transit, provided optimal shipping conditions, such as the correct temperature and handling time, are maintained.
• It is understood that some deterioration is inevitable over time, even under ideal conditions.

However, while the Incoterm defines the transfer of risk and costs, it does not specify when the grower or shipper’s responsibility for the product’s quality and condition ends.

Consider an example where avocados are sold under “FOB Good Delivery McAllen” terms to a buyer in Montreal. Under these terms, the avocados must meet specific allowable defect thresholds upon arrival at their destination. In this case, DRC Good Arrival Guidelines would apply. For an FOB shipping point transaction, the maximum permissible defects for avocados are:

• 15% total allowable defects
• 8% total allowable serious defects
• 3% total allowable decay

These thresholds align with the PACA Good Delivery Guidelines.

A timely inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) revealed that the product had 18% total defects ((C)5% discoloration, (C)4% decay, and (P)9% scars). The reefer download and temperature recorder confirmed that the product was maintained at the correct temperature throughout transit, with no delays reported. Despite this, the inspection indicated that the decay percentage exceeded the allowable limit, meaning the avocados did not meet the “Good Arrival Guidelines.”

Although the avocados exceeded the total average percentage of defects allowed by good arrival, permanent defects,* such as scars, are not computed in the total average defect calculation or checksum. Therefore, the CFIA inspection indicates 9% total condition defects (defects marked with a (C) before the named defect), which suggests that the avocados meet good arrival standards. However, the product still failed to meet good arrival because the decay exceeded the allowable percentage.

*Under FOB Good Delivery/Good Arrival terms, quality/permanent defects, such as defects marked with a (P) before the named defect in the CFIA inspection, like scars, do not count towards the total average defects or checksum.

Conclusion:

The key takeaway is that under FOB terms while the responsibility for transportation costs and risks may transfer at the point of shipment, the seller remains accountable for ensuring the product is in “suitable shipping condition” at the time of departure. The condition of the product upon arrival at the destination is critical to compliance with the terms, and factors like temperature control, packaging, and initial quality must be considered.

We hope this explanation clarifies any confusion regarding the grower/shipper’s ongoing responsibility for product quality under FOB terms. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact our Help Desk.

Kevin Smith, the Vice President of Operations for the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC), attended the 23rd meeting of the Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CCFFV), which was held in Mexico City from 25 February to 1 March 2025. This event plays an integral part in the DRC’s international engagement.

The Codex Alimentarius is an international food standards setting body. These food standards and related texts aim to protect consumer health and ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius guides the establishment of food requirements to enhance international trade.

The CCFFV develops standards specific to fresh fruits and vegetables. In the past, the DRC attended CCFFV as part of the Canadian delegation. This year, recognizing that DRC has recently widened its jurisdiction beyond North America, we attended using our official Codex observer status. The DRC participated with government delegations and fellow observers: the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).

As the DRC pursues its mission for fair and ethical trade, the CCFFV is an excellent venue for contributing to the development of international standards while connecting with governments and fellow stakeholders on our shared goals.

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.