Claire Belluz

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.

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.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy farm operation and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy restricting the transfer and merger of milk quota.

They wished to permanently transfer the newly acquired quota to their home farm without renovating the purchased facilities or milking there for the required five years.

The Tribunal found the DFO's quota transfer restrictions valid and authorized by the Milk Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an exemption, finding the appellants' reasons did not justify circumventing the policy.

However, the Tribunal reduced the conditional penalty for failing to return the cows to the purchased farm from a 20% quota reduction to a 10% reduction.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy operation but only acquired a fraction of the associated land.

They moved the purchased herd to their home farm under a temporary shared facilities agreement, intending to renovate the purchased farm.

They later abandoned renovation plans and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy to permanently merge the quotas at their home farm.

The DFO denied the exemption and ordered the cows returned to the purchased farm, imposing a 20% quota reduction penalty if they failed to comply.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's denial of the exemption, finding the appellants' desire for efficiency did not justify circumventing quota transfer policies.

However, the Tribunal found the 20% penalty disproportionate and reduced it to 10%.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Producers (AOCP) brought a motion for limited party (intervenor) status in an appeal by a dairy producer against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO).

The AOCP argued it had an interest in the constitutional and Competition Act issues raised by the appellant regarding supply management policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the AOCP failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal, which concerned milk quota transfer policies.

The Tribunal also noted that granting status shortly before the scheduled hearing would cause prejudice and delay.

The appellant, a second-generation farmer, appealed a decision of the provincial chicken regulator denying his request for 2,040 units of chicken quota or an exemption from the quota regulation.

The appellant argued he was entitled to the quota based on his father's historical production during the 1964-1965 qualifying period.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the 46-year delay in applying for quota, failed to prove qualifying production, and was not himself a chicken producer during the qualifying period.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an exemption, holding that the unaffordability of quota is not a valid basis to grant an exemption that would undermine the supply management system.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

After making numerous unsuccessful adjournment requests and failing to follow procedural orders, the appellant and his counsel boycotted the scheduled appeal hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment motion and the appeal due to the appellant's failure to attend and adduce evidence.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in costs against the appellant for unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, noting the multiple delay tactics and disrespect for the Tribunal's processes.

Landowners appealed the quality of construction of the Hambly Sabourin & Beaulac-Beach Municipal Drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the contractor deviated from the intended access route, causing damage to Sylvain Gauthier's property, and awarded him $500.

For Garry Beach, the Tribunal ordered the re-construction of a removed property line fence, directed the Engineer to inspect and repair channel rip-rap, and awarded $800 for crop loss due to delayed construction of a culvert crossing.

Other claims regarding drain maintenance, internal fences, and culvert placement were dismissed.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of his milk quota.

The appellant argued he had planned an orderly exit from the industry prior to the implementation of the assessment policy and raised medical grounds not previously submitted to the board.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the new medical evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, concluding the appellant did not experience undue hardship and his exit from the industry was not imminent when the policy was implemented.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of their production quota.

The appellants argued they were entitled to a medical exemption due to the severe and debilitating health issues of the principal operator, which forced their imminent exit from the industry.

The Tribunal found that the DFO's exemption request procedure was flawed and that the appellants were not given an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal granted the appeal on compassionate grounds, finding that the appellants' orderly exit was already in progress prior to the policy's implementation and that the DFO committed procedural errors.

The DFO was ordered to refund the $114,492.80 assessment.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the Brown/Iona Road Drain.

They argued their property would not benefit from the drain, the compensation for potential damage to a sugar maple tree and crop loss was inadequate, and the drain should be relocated.

The Tribunal found that the tree was on municipal property and no compensation was warranted, and that the allowances for crop loss were fair.

The Tribunal also found the appellants' property benefited from an improved legal outlet, confirming their assessments.

However, with the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the engineer to amend the report to relocate the road crossing to protect the sugar maple tree, with the additional costs assessed to the road authorities.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his 2005 grape crop insurance claim.

The appellant argued that Agricorp failed to properly apply production potentials to his young vines and failed to inspect the vineyard prior to underwriting.

Agricorp maintained that the contract was underwritten fairly and in accordance with its policies, using historical yield data and reasonable production potentials.

The Tribunal found that the claim was adjusted fairly and in accordance with the policies and procedures governing the Fruit Crops Insuring Agreement, noting that the appellant was treated no differently than other producers.

The appeal for an additional claim payment of $5,103.56 was denied.