Denis O'Connor

The appellant, a hatching egg producer, appealed a decision by the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission (OBHECC) to reduce his production potential for the 2000 and 2001 breeder placement cycle years, and challenged OBHECC's policy of averaging hatching egg production across all breeds to determine chick placements.

The appellant argued this policy created inequities due to the lower productivity of the Cobb breed he was assigned.

The Tribunal found that while a disparity in breed productivity existed, OBHECC had acted responsibly by developing a new breed indexing policy for 2002.

The Tribunal declined to make the policy retroactive or reverse the 2001 cutbacks, finding no gross inequity or unique economic hardship justifying intervention.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) cancelling 1,782 units of basic quota as a penalty for producing and marketing unreported chicken.

The appellant argued the penalty was disproportionately severe compared to other producers who received temporary reductions in future production rather than permanent quota cancellation.

The Tribunal found the penalty was appropriate and consistent with the CFO's treatment of producers who required a full investigation rather than signing an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting it was the appellant's second offence and emphasizing the need for strong deterrence to protect the integrity of the supply management system.

The appellants requested authorization under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to have an audio recording made of the proceedings by a professional audio technician.

The appellants argued this would allow farmers unable to attend to hear the proceedings.

Agricorp opposed the request, arguing that attending should be a priority and expressing concern about portions of the recording being taken out of context.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an audio recording was not necessary, that the proceedings were accessible, and that there was potential for disruption and disturbance of witnesses.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying their requests for allocations of basic chicken quota at no cost.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that the appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter and that part of the appeal related to matters known for more than one year.

The Tribunal granted the CFO's motion, finding that the appellants, who were not registered chicken producers, lacked sufficient interest to challenge the quota allocation policy, and that the appeal regarding the 1986 quota lottery was out of time.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to be 'grandfathered' as a counter-seasonal producer under a new daily quota system.

The DFO required producers to have been out of production for 30 consecutive days in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 dairy years to qualify.

The appellant had continuous production in 1996-97 only because he altered his milking patterns to comply with a DFO policy requiring him to stay in production to sell his quota before taking an educational sabbatical.

The Tribunal found that the interaction of these two policies created a unique circumstance and ordered the DFO to grandfather the appellant as a seasonal producer.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed a decision by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board to increase the live price of all categories of turkey by 2.0 cents per kilogram.

The Board argued the increase was necessary to offset rising heating and feed costs for producers.

The processors argued that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the turkeys being marketed for the Christmas season, and that processors could not pass on the price increase because wholesale prices were already established.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, directing the Board to rescind the price increase and reinstate the previous pricing order, finding that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the product being marketed and that processors had little opportunity to recover the increased costs.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny their claims for 1999 hay and pasture crops under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Forage.

The appellants argued that their individual yields were significantly lower than the area-based simulated yields due to drought.

The Tribunal found that the Forage Plan is an area-based plan, not an individual farm plan, and that AGRICORP calculated the claims in accordance with the regulations and the plan's requirements.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed two penalties assessed by the Director for abnormal freezing point test results, which indicate added water in the milk.

The Tribunal upheld the first penalty from July 22, 1999, finding the test results accurate and the penalty validly assessed.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the second penalty from August 13, 1999, because the appellant had only received notice of the first penalty ten days prior, which was insufficient time to resolve the underlying nutritional and equipment issues before the second sample was taken.

The second penalty was ordered expunged and the funds reimbursed.

The appellants, downstream landowners, appealed an engineer's report proposing repair and improvement of the Short Drain Branches A and B. They argued the work should be delayed pending a report on the main drain, claiming it lacked sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the appellants failed to provide cogent evidence on any issues and that the main drain provided a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal concluded the appeals were primarily intended to obstruct the municipality's statutory duty to maintain the drains, and ordered the appellants to pay a total of $4,000 in costs.

The appellants, Ontario-based dairy farmers who previously shipped milk to the Quebec market, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for compensation for losses incurred when transferring their quota to the Ontario market.

The appellants argued that the DFO's policy requiring them to transfer all their Quebec quota to Ontario, rather than selling it at a higher price in Quebec and buying cheaper Ontario quota, was unfairly administered.

The Tribunal found that the appellants transferred their quota for their own business reasons and that there was no evidence of special circumstances warranting an exemption to the DFO's policy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, five farmers, appealed a decision by the respondent crop insurance agency regarding the adjustment of their 1999 hay crop under the Forage Plan.

The appellants argued that the computer-simulated yield model used by the agency did not accurately reflect the severe drought conditions they experienced, specifically contesting the initial soil moisture data used.

The Tribunal found that the agency had applied the area-based plan and its simulation model consistently and correctly according to the plan's requirements.

As the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to alter the plan or its methodology, the appeal was denied.

The appellant association of milk transporters appealed a decision by the respondent dairy board granting a 2% increase in the labour component of the Transport Rate Formula for 2000, seeking a 3% increase instead.

The appellant argued that milk truck drivers perform specialized duties as bulk tank milk graders and that a 3% increase was necessary to remain competitive with industry-wide wage growth.

The respondent contended that the 2% increase was equitable as it matched the increase given to its own staff.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that current market factors and industry wage settlements supported a 3% increase.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying a request for an exemption from the policy on the minimum amount of quota that may be fixed and allotted to a premises.

The appellant sought to produce its crop quota in two separate existing barns rather than build an extension to its main barn to accommodate a newly allotted basic quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO's minimum quota policy of 15,000 units per registered premises was applied fairly and consistently, and granting an exemption would be unfair to other producers who complied with the policy.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant an extension of time to complete the required building expansion.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample taken from their farm.

The sample tested positive for Penicillin G, resulting in a penalty of $2,601.12.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative of their milk and pointed to inconsistencies in testing for other drugs.

The Tribunal found that sample integrity was maintained, the official test confirmed the presence of penicillin, and the appellants had a cow being treated with penicillin at the time.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, holding that producers must accept responsibility for the quality of milk produced on their farm.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that revoked his licence to produce tobacco and cancelled his 10,000 pounds of Basic Production Quota and 1999 Marketing Quota.

The appellant had previously pled guilty to Excise Act charges for selling tobacco to an unlicensed buyer.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the Basic Production Quota but allowed the appellant to market his 1999 marketing quota, finding that he had a reasonable expectation to market his 1998 carryover crop.

The appellants, tobacco farmers facing criminal charges for illegal tobacco sales, applied to the marketing board for an extension of time to apply for spring rental of their marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of their quota.

The board denied the requests, citing the pending charges and the inability to determine if the appellants were in good standing.

The Tribunal found that the board's decision was unfair, as other producers facing similar charges were allowed to continue producing and marketing tobacco.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and allowed the appellants to rent out the standard 30% of their quota, but denied the request to rent out 100%, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the exemption.

The appellant, a tobacco producer facing unresolved criminal charges for alleged unlawful sale of tobacco, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from the General Regulation 1999-2000.

The appellant sought an extension of the deadline to apply for spring rental of his marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of his quota rather than the standard 30% limit.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted unfairly by treating the appellant differently from other producers facing similar charges who were allowed to continue producing.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the 30% spring rental but denied the request to rent out 100% of the quota, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the latter exemption.

The appellant, an apple grower, appealed AGRICORP's calculation of his crop insurance claim under the 1998 Apple Production Plan.

The appellant's orchard suffered both frost and hail damage, and he argued that the claim settlement was improperly calculated and that the contract was an 'open contract' because the payout methodology for multiple perils was not clearly explained.

The Tribunal found that the contract was not an open contract and that its terms were outlined in the Plan.

The Tribunal concluded that AGRICORP calculated the claim correctly and consistently with the contract, applying the hail rider first and then calculating the frost damage after harvest, including a bumper crop settlement that increased the payout.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant dairy farm appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample.

The milk tested positive for penicillin G, resulting in a penalty and costs for the disposal of the contaminated truckload.

The appellant argued that no penicillin was used during the relevant time and suggested the contamination occurred off-farm or through testing errors.

The Tribunal found no evidence of sampling or testing errors and concluded the contamination must have occurred on the farm.

The appeal was denied.

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.