Nova-BioRubber Green Technologies Inc. v.
Investment Agriculture Foundation British Columbia
crop production, and processing for inulin and hypoallergenic rubber
products in previous projects. Dr. Buranov has previously received the
following funding for TKS innovation products from the [Program]:
[List of funding omitted.]
The organic production of crops, which was the basis of the
First Proposal, is not considered “innovative”, and as such, is
ineligible for funding.
The First Proposal included a significant number of expenses
that the Foundation found concerning, including potentially duplicated
salaries, management and consulting fees which totaled half the cost
of the project, and a significant number of capital expenses which may
not be incremental to the cost of the project.
The First Proposal lacked current and relevant letters of
support, and demonstration of British Columbian producer uptake of
the commodity. The Foundation determined that there had been
enough government investment in the commodity and project to date,
and if its production were to be successful, it would have seen
significantly more uptake by British Columbian growers and investors.
The Foundation considers letters of support from British Columbia’s
agricultural industry as a key component of an applicant’s submission
 I observe that the latter two of the four reasons listed by Ms. Koski—the
inclusion of improper expenses in the appellant’s proposal and the lack of letters of
support—are not stated in the First Decision as reasons for the refusal of the
appellant’s funding request. In the course of the appeal hearing, the Foundation
conceded that the appellant did not have notice of these two reasons until he
received the Foundation’s petition response and supporting affidavit.
 Second, Ms. Koski’s affidavit also included emails between Mr. Botkin and
Ms. Diamond that the appellant had not previously seen. The emails raise some
question as to the extent of the influence of the Ministry of Agriculture on the
Foundation’s decisions in relation to the appellant’s funding applications.
 On January 21, 2020, after the appellant had filed its amended petition
naming the Province as a respondent, the Province filed a response to petition and
Ms. Diamond’s affidavit in support. In its response, the Province pleaded that it had
not made any of the decisions under review, and in any event, the Province is not an
appropriate respondent on an application for judicial review. In her affidavit,