Doug Flook

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, Georgian Bay Milk Company, appealed decisions by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission that effectively shut down its export milk business following a WTO ruling against Canada's commercial export milk mechanism.

The Tribunal found that the WTO did not rule on whether non-quota holders were subsidized and ordered the DFO and OFPMC to submit the appellant's proposed unsubsidized export milk program to the federal government for review.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant an interim exemption to continue operating and allowed its milk to be transported in segregated trucks.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP to deny them crop insurance coverage for five years and to require the repayment of previously settled claims due to alleged misrepresentation of crop yields.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal adopted the minutes of settlement, which rescinded the five-year ban and the repayment requirement, but rendered the appellants ineligible for crop insurance for the 2003 crop year.

The appellant appealed a pricing order by the respondent marketing board that increased the price of live turkeys.

The appellant argued for a smaller price increase due to weak market conditions and lower processor margins.

The respondent justified the larger increase based on higher feed costs incurred by producers.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the increase in feed costs warranted the respondent's price increases and that the timing of the increase during the festive season would allow processors to pass costs onto customers.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Outlet Portion of the 2nd Concession Drain West of Wigle Creek.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted a joint recommendation to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the minutes of settlement, dismissing the appeal of the engineer's report and allowing the appeal from the Court of Revision to amend the assessment schedule by transferring $36,500 from outlet liability to benefit assessments for two roads.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision assessing a penalty for failing to meet Grade A standards under Regulation 761 of the Milk Act.

A fieldperson found the farm's milking equipment was not in good repair and the milkhouse was not neat and clean.

The appellant argued the farm was clean and the penalty was unjustified.

The Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the milking equipment was not thoroughly cleaned, showed signs of 'inking', and the milkhouse was untidy.

The appeal was denied and the penalty upheld.

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, tobacco farmers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board refusing to permit them to change their Declarations of 2001 Tobacco Kiln Conversion to reflect 20 additional kilns.

The appellants had purchased the kilns to replace rented ones prior to the announcement of a rebate program, but an inspector incorrectly advised them not to include the new kilns on their declarations.

The Tribunal found that the appellants relied on the detrimental advice of the inspector and that the kilns were eligible for funding under the program guidelines.

The appeal was granted, and the Board was ordered to pay the appellants $1,500 for each of the 20 additional kilns.

The Wine Council of Ontario and several winery growers appealed decisions of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board regarding substantial increases in license fees for the 2001 vintage year.

The appellants sought the release of the Board's budget, a reversal of the fee increases, and the withdrawal of late payment penalties and interest on withheld fees.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted within its authority to increase fees and was not obligated to release its confidential budget.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal regarding penalties, ordering that the 5% penalty be applied to outstanding fees but staying the 2% monthly interest until April 15, 2002.

The appellant processor sought to appeal an order of the respondent board regarding a dockage dispute over potato shipments.

The appeal was filed more than one year after the appellant had knowledge of the order.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference to determine whether to exercise its discretion under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to hear the appeal despite the delay.

The Tribunal declined to hear the appeal, finding that the appellant had engaged in self-help by withholding funds rather than utilizing the regulated marketing system's dispute resolution mechanisms in a timely manner.

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 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 appellant, Van Moorsel Farms Ltd., appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to reverse a transfer of 10,008 units of basic quota to a purchaser and refusing to allocate an additional 6,500 units of basic quota to the appellant.

The appellant argued that because it had not been fully paid for the quota at the time the CFO announced a new quota conversion policy, it retained property rights in the quota and was entitled to the new allocation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that quota is a revocable license, not personal property, and that the appellant had initiated the transfer before the policy freeze date, rendering it ineligible for the new allocation.

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 appellants appealed their assessment under the Drainage Act regarding the Dippel Drainage Works.

The Court of Revision had previously altered the engineer's original assessment schedule by shifting statutory benefits for culverts from downstream landowners to the appellants.

The Tribunal found no basis in the Drainage Act for the Court of Revision's changes and noted that the revised maintenance schedule inequitably burdened the appellants.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, set aside the Court of Revision's decision, and reinstated the original engineer's report.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the Ripley Drain.

They had initially requested that an open ditch on their property be filled in with lawn tile, but objected to the $20,000 special benefit assessment and the routing of additional surface water across their property.

They requested that the surface water be diverted or the ditch relocated to the road allowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the engineer's report appropriately addressed the drainage problems of upstream owners and that the appellants must bear the cost if they choose to enclose the ditch on their property.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Lewis and Maple Avenue South Drains.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments for the Lewis Drain as modified by the Court of Revision.

For the Maple Avenue South Drain, the Tribunal found the work was required but modified the assessment schedule to reflect that the major factor contributing to the need for the work was the construction of berms by one of the appellants, assessing a special benefit to that owner.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the repair of the Edgar Sideroad Drain.

The engineer had based the assessments on a 1979 report but later provided a revised schedule that changed almost every property's assessment.

The appellants and other assessed owners raised concerns about the calculation of cut-off benefits, watershed boundaries, and the distribution of costs.

The engineer acknowledged errors and requested the report be referred back.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer for reconsideration under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, with specific recommendations for the revised report, and ordered that the engineering costs for the revision and hearing not be charged to the drainage project.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Walker Drain, Branch 'B' in the Township of West Elgin.

The appellants argued that the anticipated benefits of the proposed drainage works were not commensurate with the estimated costs and challenged their respective assessments.

The Tribunal found that the project was necessary to address flooding issues and that the administrative costs, while high, were largely due to the ratepayers' own requests for meetings and revisions.

The Tribunal confirmed the engineer's assessments, finding them appropriate given the natural drainage patterns and the benefits provided by the new drain.

The appeals were dismissed.