Cor Kapteyn

The appellants, who immigrated from Holland to purchase a dairy farm in Ontario, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request to transfer an additional 25 kg of milk quota from the farm's seller.

The appellants argued their situation was unique and extraordinary because they had already sold their Dutch farm and committed to the purchase before realizing the full quota could not be transferred under DFO policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants proceeded with the purchase with full knowledge of the reduced quota and that their circumstances were neither exceptional nor outside their control.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment for the Laister Drain Branches 1, 3, and 4 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) should be assessed a higher amount for the drain reconstruction because the recent expansion of Highway 401 caused additional water to flow onto his property.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the drainage engineer, who testified that the MTO watershed area and runoff coefficients had been appropriately calculated and increased to account for the highway expansion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to contradict the engineer's findings or justify amending the schedule of assessments.

Several property owners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the Engineer's Report regarding the Glencairn Drainage Works, which proposed a cut-off drain to address severe flooding in the hamlet.

The appellants argued that the project was unnecessary, that alternative solutions like road ditches should have been considered, and that their individual assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the project was necessary to divert agricultural water around the residential area and that the cost distribution (80% to the municipality, 20% to landowners) was reasonable based on the benefit derived.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant, a tobacco farming corporation, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying the use of its previous farm licence numbers and a refund for licence fees paid in 2009 and 2010.

The appellant argued that the Board did not have the authority to remove its basic production quota (BPQ) and that the new licensing system improperly limited production.

The Tribunal found that the Board had the absolute authority to remove the BPQ and transition to a licensing system under the Farm Products Marketing Act and its regulations.

The Tribunal also found that the new licensing system did not improperly limit production, as growers could produce as much tobacco as they could secure contracts for.

The appeal was denied, as the Tribunal could not reinstate a quota system that no longer existed.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, suffered a catastrophic injury in a farming accident and was forced to sell his entire milk quota.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) applied a 15% transfer assessment to the sale and denied his request for an exemption under the extraordinary circumstances policy.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the DFO's exemption policy lacked clear criteria and criticized its inconsistent and confidential handling of exemption requests.

Recognizing the appellant's extraordinary circumstances but also the significant appreciation in his quota value over 28 years, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and ordered the DFO to refund half of the withheld assessment amount.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his crop insurance claim for 57 acres of processing peas.

The crop was rejected by the processor due to a heavy infestation of nightshade weed.

The appellant argued the weed growth was caused by excessive rainfall, an insured peril, which leached the applied herbicide.

Agricorp maintained the loss was due to inadequate weed control, an uninsured peril.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious signs of water damage to the crop and concluding that the appellant failed to implement adequate weed management practices to control the known nightshade issue.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Turkey Farmers of Ontario imposing a condition on the transfer of turkey quota to him.

The condition required the appellant to acquire his own premises suitable for turkey production within five years.

The appellant argued that his 10% ownership of a numbered company that operated the farm satisfied the policy requirement for beneficial ownership.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not control the property and that the marketing board's policy requiring quota to be in the same name as the owner of the land was consistently applied to prevent speculation.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging that one of the panel members had a conflict of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The member, an active dairy farmer whose farm was subject to DFO regulatory action, failed to disclose his status until after the hearing concluded.

The Tribunal found that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO breached the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new hearing ordered.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting the Tribunal review and set aside its previous decision regarding an appeal by John and Susanna Cayer.

The DFO argued that one of the panel members, an active dairy farmer with a regulatory history with the DFO, had a conflict of interest and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by failing to disclose his status at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO violated the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the public's confidence in the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new panel was assigned to rehear the matter.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Phelpston Marsh Drain Improvements, arguing that the costs of the proposed works were excessive and proposing a cheaper alternative.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's alternative proposal lacked engineering analysis and safety features, and did not meet the requirements of the Drainage Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Philon Energy Inc., appealed a drainage report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the proposed Gamble Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the allowances provided for the drain's right of way on its property were inadequate, the cost-benefit split was incorrect, and the report contained errors.

The Tribunal ordered several text amendments to the report, including reducing the working area width from 15 metres to 6 metres.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's 83/17 benefit-outlet cost split and the section 31 allowance for previously constructed drain parts.

However, the Tribunal found the Engineer's valuation for the section 29 right of way allowance lacking and increased it to $9,084.98, applying a 50% discount for municipal setbacks and a 50% discount for retained multiple-use rights to the appellant's appraised land value.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken processing company, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) imposing a supply utilization penalty of $9,548.16.

The penalty arose after the appellant acquired the entire calculated base of another processor without inquiring about potential liabilities.

The Tribunal upheld the CFO's decision, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and that the penalty was imposed in accordance with the CFO's governing laws and policies.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision upholding somatic cell count (SCC) penalties imposed on their milk production for June, July, and August 2006.

They alleged that the official milk samples had been tampered with or improperly tested, and presented independent test results that differed from the official results.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of tampering or testing inaccuracies, noting that the independent samples had been frozen, which could alter SCC results.

The appeal was dismissed and the official SCC test results were confirmed.

The appellant, an abattoir operator, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency ordering it to pay outstanding license fees, finance charges, and a $1,000 fine, subject to a payment schedule and threat of license suspension.

The appellant argued financial hardship and disputed the slaughter numbers.

The Tribunal found the agency's slaughter data valid and upheld the requirement to remit fees, noting that bad debts from customers do not relieve the operator of its regulatory obligations.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of correcting a $374.82 billing error agreed upon by the parties; the $1,000 fine and payment schedule were upheld.

The appellants, owners of agricultural land, petitioned the municipality for improved drainage.

The municipality appointed an engineer who prepared a report recommending a new drain.

The municipality's council refused to adopt the report, citing concerns about costs and setting a precedent for draining farmers' fields.

The appellants appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding a definite need for drainage and rejecting the municipality's rationale as lacking legal foundation.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to adopt the engineer's report and to pay the engineer's costs for attending the hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp denying their 2005 forage crop insurance claim.

Agricorp had adjusted the claim based on rainfall data from the Percy rain station, which the appellants had selected after receiving a letter from Agricorp and calling its Call Centre.

The appellants argued they were not fully informed of their options and that Agricorp had re-adjusted other customers' claims who were similarly misinformed.

The Tribunal found that the Agricorp Call Centre representative gave incomplete advice by simply telling the appellants to select the station closest to their farm, failing to fully inform them of their options.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to adjust the claim using the Seymour rainfall station, which would result in a payout.

Ruedel Farms Inc. appealed a decision by the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers (OPVG) denying it a licence to grow carrots for processing in 2006.

Ruedel had hired Kejay, a company previously prohibited by the Tribunal from producing and marketing carrots for processing in 2006, to do custom work.

The Tribunal found that the arrangement effectively allowed Kejay to produce and market the carrots, violating the prior order.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence denial was upheld.