Denis O'Connor

The appellant appealed under Section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of work on the Lownsbrough and Spray Drains on his property.

He alleged that the spoil from the excavation was not spread in accordance with the specifications, fences were not properly re-established, and the property was not adequately re-seeded.

The Tribunal found that the work was done within the specifications of the engineer's report, the fences were satisfactorily replaced, and the lands were re-seeded.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision upholding a high bacteria test result on milk produced on his farm, which prevented him from receiving an annual quality award.

The appellant argued the high count was caused by unauthorized adjustments to his milking equipment by technicians servicing a time-temperature recording device.

The Tribunal found the laboratory test result was valid and that the evidence did not support the contention that the technicians' actions caused the high bacteria count.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding a penalty for a positive inhibitor test on a milk sample taken from his farm.

The appellant argued that his record keeping was adequate and that the positive test result was impossible given his practices.

The Tribunal found that the laboratory test was conclusive for the presence of cephapirin in the milk and that there was no evidence the inhibitor was introduced anywhere other than the farm.

The Tribunal denied the appeal and upheld the prescribed penalty.

The appellant, a milk producer, appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance permanently shutting him off from the milk market after he was caught transferring milk from his son's farm into his own bulk tank.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did contravene Regulation 761 by receiving the transferred milk.

However, the Tribunal held that the Director exceeded his authority in permanently shutting off the appellant, as the regulation only permitted a monetary penalty of $2 per hectolitre for a first offence within a 12-month period.

The appeal was granted and the penalty was reduced accordingly.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) cancelling their milk production licenses and quotas.

The DFO had penalized the appellants for shipping milk outside the DFO system to a U.S. broker in violation of DFO Regulation 08/03 and for ignoring 'cease and desist' orders.

The Tribunal found that the appellants deliberately contravened the regulations and disregarded the orders.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the appellants' licenses but reduced the quota cancellation penalties, ordering the remaining quota to be sold on the exchange or forfeited.

The appellants, dairy farmers who had sold milk on the export market prior to the termination of the Export Contract Exchange, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to cancel their licences to market milk and cease pick-up of their milk.

The DFO had required all producers to hold a minimum of 5 kg of milk quota, which the appellants failed to acquire.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the DFO treated the appellants no differently than other producers holding less than 5 kg of quota, did not induce them to sell their quota, and that allowing them to ship over-quota milk to the DFO would result in a negative return.

The appellant processors' association appealed a marketing board order increasing the live price of hen and broiler turkeys by 3.0 ¢/kg.

The appellant argued that declining feed and poult costs, along with market uncertainties, did not justify the price increase.

The respondent board contended that the increase was justified based on market factors, lower storage stocks, and the need to improve producer margins, which had been negative compared to processor margins.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding that the market factors supported the price increase and provided an opportunity for producers to recover from lower margins in previous years.

The appellant, International Dairy Direct - Broker Agent (IDDBA), appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to endorse IDDBA's proposed milk export plan.

The DFO had re-regulated the Ontario dairy industry to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against subsidized Canadian milk exports.

IDDBA sought approval for a plan to broker over-quota milk for export to the United States.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed plan was not clearly defined, lacked firm agreements, and would negatively impact Ontario's supply management system by encouraging over-quota production.

International Dairy Direct – Broker Agent (IDDBA) appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to endorse IDDBA's proposed milk export plan.

IDDBA sought to export over-quota milk to the United States in compliance with a World Trade Organization ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed plan would negatively impact Ontario's supply management system, was not clearly defined, and that the DFO's refusal was not prejudicial or inconsistent with its policies.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed the Director's decision to impose freezing point penalties on his milk in January and February 2003, which resulted in a permanent shut-off from the milk market due to accumulating four penalties within a 12-month period.

The appellant admitted that water was introduced into the bulk tank by his father's practices but argued he was misled by the automated telephone system regarding the test results.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties, finding that the test results were accurate, the appellant was responsible for milk quality, and adequate notice was provided through multiple channels.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP regarding a crop insurance claim for their 2000 corn crop.

The appeal was filed after the one-year limitation period prescribed by regulation.

AGRICORP argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

The Tribunal found that it had the administrative mandate to grant extensions in appropriate circumstances.

Given that the appellants had actively pursued their claim through a review committee, were not warned of the impending deadline, and AGRICORP suffered no prejudice, the Tribunal extended the time for filing the appeal.

The appellant hatchery appealed decisions of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission (OBHECC) assessing fines for obstructing an inspector, failing to report bird sales, and failing to produce requested information.

The appellant also requested the Tribunal to order OBHECC to issue Hatching Egg Market Share for special dual purpose birds.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding market share for lack of jurisdiction, as the appellant had not first applied to OBHECC.

After hearing evidence, the Tribunal upheld all fines, finding that the appellant knowingly failed to fulfill its obligations under the regulated marketing scheme.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board cancelling their basic production quota for participating in illegal sales of tobacco.

The Tribunal found that evidence from an RCMP investigation supported the finding that tobacco was shipped from the appellants' farm to Quebec on two occasions and that the appellants were aware of these shipments.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty of quota cancellation, finding it appropriate given the severity of the infraction in a highly regulated industry.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to cancel his basic production quota and his 2001 marketing quota after he admitted to illegally selling tobacco.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the basic production quota but varied the penalty regarding the 2001 crop, allowing it to be marketed subject to a fine equivalent to 20% of the proceeds.

The Tribunal found that the timing of the Board's hearing created an inequity for the appellant and his sharegrowers, who had already incurred harvest costs.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding six somatic cell count (SCC) test results in the penalty range, which ultimately led to their farm being shut off from shipping milk.

The appellants argued that the official test results were inaccurate and inconsistent with independent tests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the high SCC scores were caused by a high incidence of Staph. aureus mastitis in the herd, combined with less than adequate management by the producers.

The Tribunal found no evidence of anomalies in the standard procedures used for sampling and testing the milk.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's adjustment of his 2000 hay crop claim under the Crop Insurance Forage Plan.

The appellant argued that the computer-simulated yield (SIMFOY) was inaccurate due to faulty rain gauges and unrepresentative weather data locations.

The Tribunal found no proof of basic error in rainfall data collection but noted a large discrepancy between co-operators' actual yields and the simulated yield.

Finding the appellant credible regarding his actual yield being lower than recorded, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part and ordered AGRICORP to recalculate the simulated yield using an actual co-operator yield of 66% of normal.

The Hostess Frito Lay Company and Super Pufft Snacks Corp. appealed a decision of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission refusing to bring into force settlement agreements negotiated between the processors and the Ontario Potato Board.

The Commission had previously declined to re-open arbitrated awards, citing concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process amidst ongoing court challenges.

However, the Tribunal found that the multi-year settlement agreements, which were supported by growers and other industry stakeholders, would provide a mutually agreeable and stable marketing environment.

The Tribunal granted the appeals and ordered the Commission to bring the settlement agreements into force.

The appellant, a carrot grower, appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying his crop insurance claim for his 2000 carrot crop.

The appellant left 15 acres of carrots in the field because his processor experienced scheduling delays and he lacked long-term storage, resulting in the crop freezing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the loss was not caused by an insured peril and that weather conditions did not prevent the crop from being harvested in a timely fashion.

The appellant, a hatching egg producer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission not to adjust his flock disposal date.

The appellant argued that the current bird-based allocation system prevented him from reaching his full market share and requested an order implementing an egg-based system.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was not treated differently than any other producer and that the current bird-based system was appropriate.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed a decision of the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board regarding the live prices of broiler, hen, and tom turkeys.

The Committee sought a reduction in prices due to declining energy costs and high storage stocks, while the Board argued that producers had not fully recovered from previous high energy costs.

The Tribunal accepted the Committee's proposal, ordering the Board to rescind Pricing Order 292, maintain the price of tom turkeys at the previous order's level, and reduce the price of hen and broiler turkeys by 2 cents/kg.