Creekside Valley Farms v. Dept. of Agriculture

“Implicit in the requirement that orders be supported by substantial evidence is an additional requirement that they be supported by substantial reason. An order is supported by substantial reason when it articulates a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it draws from them…”. SAIF v. Coria, 371 Or 1, 12 (2023).

Petitioner sought review of the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s (Respondent) final order imposing civil penalties in the amount of $80,000 for eight violations of ORS 634.372(4). Petitioner assigned error to Respondent for concluding they violated the statute on eight separate occasions. Petitioner argues that while they did violate the statute, they did not violate it on eight separate occasions. Respondent responded that the statute defines each distinguishable field as a separate violation and since Petitioner applied the pesticide on eight fields, Petitioner violated the statute eight times. “Implicit in the requirement that orders be supported by substantial evidence is an additional requirement that they be supported by substantial reason. An order is supported by substantial reason when it articulates a rational connection between the facts and the legal conclusions it  draws from them…”. SAIF v. Coria, 371 Or 1, 12 (2023). The Court reasoned that the Respondent reasonably interpreted the statute, but because they did not provide any evidence to support the conclusion that Petitioner made eight separate decisions to use the pesticide, Respondent did not provide substantial evidence. The Court further reasoned that because Respondent did not apply the statute consistently, they did not provide substantial reason for their conclusion.