Andrew C. Wright

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario from a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal would proceed as a hearing de novo and consolidated several related appeals.

The order outlined the issues to be addressed, including total Ontario domestic supply determination, individual processor allocation, category requirements, price determination, and export policy.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for document disclosure and scheduled the hearing dates.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the Ripley Drain.

They had initially requested that an open ditch on their property be filled in with lawn tile, but objected to the $20,000 special benefit assessment and the routing of additional surface water across their property.

They requested that the surface water be diverted or the ditch relocated to the road allowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the engineer's report appropriately addressed the drainage problems of upstream owners and that the appellants must bear the cost if they choose to enclose the ditch on their property.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission regarding the allocation of live chicken to processors.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant requested that the hearing be bifurcated to deal with three preliminary jurisdictional issues—lack of notice, exceeding jurisdiction, and bias—before proceeding to the substantive merits.

Despite concerns from some participants about delay and duplication, the Tribunal ordered that the jurisdictional issues be heard first as questions of law, reserving the right to join them with the substantive hearing if material evidence becomes controversial.