Denis O'Connor

The appellants, operators of a dairy farm, appealed decisions of the Director of Regulatory Compliance of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario not to cancel freezing point test results and resulting penalties from February, March, and April 1998.

The appellants did not dispute the test results but sought relief on humanitarian grounds, arguing the violations were related to the January 1998 ice storm.

The Tribunal found no cause-effect link between the ice storm and the freezing point violations, concluding instead that the issues stemmed from farm management practices that were only corrected after milk pick-up was shut off.

The appeal was denied and the penalties were allowed to stand.

Several ratepayers appealed the proposed Bradley Drainage Works Lot 246 Lane Culvert Replacement under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the existing culvert should be repaired rather than replaced, or alternatively, that a new lane should be constructed to avoid the need for a crossing.

The Tribunal accepted the engineering evidence that the existing culvert was structurally deficient and could not be repaired to an acceptable standard.

The Tribunal also found that constructing a new lane would be more expensive and might not meet Ministry of Transportation requirements.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's assessment methodology, which divided the cost 50% as benefit to the adjacent owner and 50% as outlet to the upstream watershed.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario not to cancel positive inhibitor test results and the associated penalties and load liability costs.

A milk sample from their farm tested positive for penicillin, resulting in the contamination and disposal of an entire truckload of milk.

The appellants argued the contamination must have occurred off-farm, as they were not treating cows with penicillin.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in sample handling or testing, noting the presence of antibiotics on the farm, and emphasizing the producers' failure to keep permanent treatment records.

The Tribunal held that responsibility for the milk remains with the producer.

Farm Fresh Poultry Co-operative Inc. appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying its request for an increased base allocation of live chicken supply and a guaranteed growth process to reach two million kilograms.

Farm Fresh argued it should be treated as a new entrant under Quota Policy 129-1996.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that Farm Fresh was not a new entrant because it had acquired an existing plant's supply, and that the CFO acted fairly in applying its new supply setting agreement.

The Tribunal concluded that economic viability and plant capacity were not valid criteria for allocation.

Subsequently, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs varied the Tribunal's decision, awarding Farm Fresh an additional allocation of 105,000 kilograms for the domestic market commencing in period A-24, but denied the request for an accelerated growth pattern.

The appellant, H. A. Staff Limited, appealed a decision of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board denying a proposal to calculate Board fees as a single percentage point of the gross market value for all classes of grapes.

The appellant argued the current fee structure, which includes a flat rate plus a percentage of market value, disproportionately burdened lower-priced grape classes.

The Tribunal found the current method of spreading generic costs via a flat fee plus a percentage of crop value to be reasonable and fair.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision allowing two high plate loop count (PLC) test results to stand, which resulted in penalties.

The appellant argued the samples were mishandled by the milk grader and did not reflect the farm's milk quality.

The Tribunal found no evidence of improper sampling or testing procedures, noting the appellant's samples were the only ones on the load with high counts.

The Tribunal concluded that issues with the farm's washing system and equipment provided opportunities for bacterial contamination, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying his claim under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Pasture (the Forage Plan) for the 1997 crop year.

The appellant argued that his area experienced severe drought conditions resulting in a 60% to 70% yield shortfall, which was not reflected in AGRICORP's computer-simulated area yield.

The Tribunal found that the Forage Plan is an area-based plan and that AGRICORP had calculated the simulated yield in accordance with the plan's formulas without error or discriminatory treatment.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Tribunal noted significant flaws in the Forage Plan's design.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario finding that he had violated marketing regulations by producing and marketing 139,010 kilograms of unreported chicken.

The Board had assessed license fees and levies and cancelled all of his basic production quota.

The Tribunal found clear evidence that the appellant participated in a scheme to shave weights and market unreported chicken.

However, noting this was a first offence, the Tribunal found the penalty too severe and reduced it to a cancellation of 50% of the appellant's basic quota units, while upholding the assessment of $61,391.87 in fees and levies.

The appellant, a tobacco producer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying his request to institute a policy of pooling the proceeds of sale of tobacco by grade.

The appellant argued that the current system, where prices fluctuate based on the day of sale, is inequitable.

The Board maintained that price pooling would remove incentives for quality production and should not be implemented without consensus from the Tobacco Industry Advisory Committee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that a significant number of producers supported the proposed change to the marketing system.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision allowing a positive inhibitor test result for sulphamethazine (SMZ) in their milk to stand.

They argued the sample may have been contaminated after leaving their farm or improperly handled by the bulk tank milk grader.

The Tribunal found no evidence of tampering or improper handling, noting that the sample vial's security was intact and no other samples on the route tested positive.

As there was no evidence that the SMZ entered the milk from a source other than the farm, the Tribunal denied the appeal and upheld the test result.

The appellant, a licensed chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario imposing a penalty of a 10,000-kilogram quota reduction for failing to report 2,000 kilograms of chicken production.

The appellant admitted to the unreported marketing but argued the penalty was too severe given his difficulties with the processor.

The Tribunal found that while illegal production is a serious breach, the penalty was severe and likely an act of omission caused by frustration rather than a deliberate attempt to circumvent regulations.

The Tribunal denied the appeal but adjusted the penalty to a 6,000-kilogram quota reduction, representing three times the unreported amount, consistent with first-offence penalties.

The appellant processor association appealed a decision by the respondent marketing board to allocate an additional one million kilograms of chicken to a specific processor for a quota period, bypassing the standard special request panel process.

The appellant argued this extra allocation would negatively impact the market and set a dangerous precedent.

The Tribunal found that while the board had the authority to grant the exemption and the processor demonstrated a legitimate need for additional product, the full one million kilogram allocation raised concerns about market effects.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the additional allotment to 600,000 kilograms.

The appellant processors' committee appealed a pricing order by the respondent marketing board that raised or maintained the live price of turkeys.

The appellant argued that high storage stocks, reduced processor margins, and changes in retail purchasing practices necessitated a price reduction.

The respondent argued that the price increase was justified by higher feed costs and positive market indicators.

The Tribunal found that while market indicators were beginning to show positive signs, they were not sufficient to support a price increase given the processors' reduced margins.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, ordering a 2.0 cent reduction in the price of all categories of turkey for a specified period.

The appellants, four independent dairies in Northern Ontario, appealed a decision by the Farm Products Marketing Commission to modify its Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy.

The policy changes merged distribution areas and allowed fluid milk products processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to consult adequately on the substance of the changes and requested the Tribunal direct the Commission to reopen the issue and conduct hearings in Northern Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission had conducted adequate consultation with the industry starting in 1993 and that the industry should not have been surprised by the policy change.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend the Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy, which eliminated distribution areas in Northern Ontario and allowed fluid milk processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.

The appellants requested a delay in implementation and public hearings, and one appellant requested an exemption to source milk from Southern Ontario earlier than scheduled.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the Commission had adequately consulted the industry, had considered the anticipated impact, and had provided adequate notification of the phased implementation.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to address the exemption request as it had not been considered by the Commission.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding the methodology used to determine the price of Class 4(a) milk under the P6 Agreement.

The appellant argued that the new pricing system failed to achieve revenue neutrality, resulting in increased costs for butter and powder manufacturers.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had followed the agreed-upon P6 methodology, even though it resulted in a cost increase.

The Tribunal declined to make a decision on the dispute, concluding that the proper forum for resolving the issue was the governing body of the P6 Agreement, as Ontario could not act unilaterally.

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

The appellant had been forced to sell his quota to satisfy bank loans called due to his marital breakdown.

The Tribunal found that while the circumstances warranted compassion, the request to return the transfer assessment and grant an additional quota allocation should be denied.

However, the Tribunal directed the DFO to purchase the appellant's over quota milk produced during the 1996/97 dairy year at full price, up to a maximum of 11,500 kg, as a form of assistance.

The appellant, a counter-seasonal dairy producer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for an exemption from the continuous production requirement for over-quota levy refunds.

The Tribunal found that the policy change unfairly excluded the appellant, who had been a counter-seasonal producer prior to the policy's implementation.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering the respondent to pay the over-quota levy refunds for the 1994/95, 1995/96, and 1996/97 dairy years.

The appellant, an apple grower, appealed a decision of the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission denying his request for a list of the names and addresses of all registered apple growers.

The appellant sought the list to facilitate open communication among growers.

The Commission refused to release the list but offered to conduct a supervised mailing on the appellant's behalf.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant could achieve his communication goals within the Commission's current policies and that the Commission's policy of protecting grower information was reasonable.