Charles Broadwell

The appellants, hatching egg producers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission denying them just cause to terminate a growing contract with a breeder grower.

The appellants sought to terminate the contract because the grower's facility was too small for their increased quota and they did not want a split flock.

The grower committed to renovating his barn to accommodate the larger flock.

The Tribunal found that the renovations could likely be completed in time and that there was no just cause to terminate the contract, dismissing the appeal but directing the Commission to monitor the renovations.

The appellant, a chicken processor, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an additional chicken quota allocation.

The appellant argued that the Special Request Panel's decision was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Panel Chair had previously authored a report used against the appellant in a prior proceeding.

The Tribunal found that while a reasonable person might have an apprehension of bias, the appellant waived its right to object by failing to raise the issue at the first opportunity during the Panel meeting.

The Tribunal declined to review the Panel's decision on the basis of bias.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the assessments in an engineer's report for the Cranberry Lake Drain.

The Tribunal found that the main purpose of the proposed work was to provide an outlet for upstream lands rather than direct benefit to adjacent lands.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefit-to-outlet ratio should be adjusted to 40% benefit and 60% outlet to ensure equitable treatment of similarly situated properties.

The report was referred back to the engineer for reconsideration of the assessments in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

The respondent Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, brought a preliminary motion requesting that the Tribunal refuse to hear the appellants' appeal on the basis that it was frivolous.

The appellants had appealed decisions not to cancel freezing point test results and resulting penalties.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions and concluded that a hearing should be convened and that mediation was not within its mandate.

The preliminary request to refuse to hear the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that proposed improvements to the Hoy Drain were unnecessary and should be abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the existing drain, designed in 1962, no longer provided adequate drainage for the neighbouring property, which had experienced ongoing water ponding despite the installation of private tiles.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that upgrading the outlet was a necessary first step to resolve the drainage issues.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in costs because they failed to provide credible evidence to support their assertions and necessitated an unnecessary hearing.