Arnold Strub

The Appellant appealed a director's decision that conditionally restored its meat plant operating licence following a provisional suspension.

The suspension was issued after the Appellant's principal refused to allow a Ministry inspector to conduct a random inspection of the meat plant, claiming it was closed.

The Tribunal found that the inspector's attempts to conduct random inspections were reasonable and necessary for food safety.

The Tribunal restored the licence but imposed stricter conditions than the director, including a requirement for a pre-start-up inspection and 24-hour advance notice to the Ministry before any processing occurs.

The Appellants appealed a decision classifying their farm as unsanitary non-Grade A and shutting it off from the milk market after they refused to allow a Grade A inspection.

The Respondent brought a motion to refuse to hear the appeal under subsection 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and not made in good faith.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no legal merit, as market access requires compliance with inspection laws, and was brought for the improper purpose of harassing officials.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal and awarded $7,500 in costs against the Appellants for their unacceptable conduct.

The appellant appealed the benefit/outlet assessments for the Workman Municipal Drain 2018 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

He argued his assessment was too high compared to downstream properties and that upstream wetlands would receive an improved outlet.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over his other concerns regarding the need, design, and cost of the works, as he missed the deadline to appeal under section 48.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the assessments were developed using the modified Todgham method and were fair and equitable.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to an amendment to the engineer's report to include an inlet control device to ensure the upstream wetlands do not receive an improved outlet.

The Township of Wainfleet applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to complete a new engineering report for the Consolidated South Wainfleet Drain under Section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The current assessment schedule, based on a 1969 report, did not accurately distribute maintenance costs among the branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the request met the requirements of the Act and granted permission to appoint an engineer to procure a new report to vary the assessments.

Seven chicken producers appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying compensation for losses resulting from a quarantine imposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, which included out-of-pocket expenses and lost profits.

The majority of the Tribunal granted the motion in part, finding it had no statutory authority to award compensatory damages or lost profits arising from the quarantine.

However, the Tribunal found it did have jurisdiction to hear claims regarding over and under marketing levies and penalties.

The appellants, owners of large, primarily undeveloped properties, appealed their assessments for future maintenance of the Black Creek Drainage Works.

They argued that they should not be assessed for Benefit, or alternatively, that their Benefit assessment should be equivalent to a single developed lot.

The Tribunal held that Benefit assessments are appropriate for future maintenance schedules and that properties should be assessed based on their development potential rather than current use.

However, the Tribunal found that the engineer's method of equally dividing the Benefit assessment among the four large lots was inappropriate, and ordered that the assessment be re-distributed based on the length of drain abutting each property.

The appeal regarding a small, landlocked parcel was granted, reducing its assessment to zero.

The appellant, a chicken farmer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying his request for an exemption from a $1,768 annual service charge.

The charge was imposed on producers who opted out of the CFO's mandatory digital communication system and chose to continue filing paper forms.

The Tribunal found that the CFO had the statutory authority under Regulation 402 of the Farm Products Marketing Act to impose both licence fees and service charges.

As no other exempted producer was relieved from paying the fee, the Tribunal found no basis to grant the appellant an exemption and dismissed the appeal.

Integrated Farming Ltd. (IFL), a joint venture between a tomato processor and a farming enterprise, appealed a decision by the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers denying it a licence to produce and market tomatoes for processing.

The Board had refused the licence on the basis that the joint venture was an arrangement designed to circumvent pricing restrictions and achieve a lower price for tomatoes.

The Tribunal found that the joint venture had legitimate business purposes, including supply chain control and product differentiation, and that the Board failed to prove the arrangement was solely to circumvent pricing.

The Tribunal ordered the Board to issue the producer licence to IFL.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) requiring him to provide an email address for communications and suspending his crop quota until compliance.

At the hearing, the CFO conceded and agreed to allow the appellant to communicate in writing.

The Tribunal set aside the quota suspension.

The issue of the prescribed fee for non-digital communications was remitted to the CFO Board for a first-instance determination.