Elwood Quaile

The appellant appealed decisions of the marketing board rejecting its proposal to market a limited number of market weight hogs (up to 5% of its total sales of 'off sort' hogs).

The appellant argued the exemption would allow it to provide better service to producers without harming the marketing board's market power.

The marketing board argued that allowing competitors in its core market would erode its single desk selling authority and market power.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the marketing board's market power would be diminished by allowing competitors in the market weight hog category, and that preserving the single desk selling function was in the best interests of Ontario pork producers.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report prepared under Section 40 of the Drainage Act concerning the Clear Creek Drain.

The project was initiated under Section 78 but was abandoned after landowners objected to the estimated costs.

The engineer assessed the costs of the abandoned report against the landowners based on a 1915 assessment schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the municipality and engineer handled the process poorly by allowing costs to accumulate without landowner support, the Act does not permit the Tribunal to order the municipality to bear the costs.

The Tribunal ordered the costs to be pro-rated among the lands in the watershed on an acreage basis.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a non Grade A penalty assessed by the Director of Regulatory Compliance for non-compliance with raw milk quality regulations.

The penalty was imposed after inspections revealed structural issues and dirty animals on the farm.

The Tribunal found that while the structural issues were resolved, the farm did not meet the cleanliness standards for cows and the heifer barn set out in Regulation 761 under the Milk Act on the relevant inspection dates.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a dairy farmer and member of a transport co-operative, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) that reassigned his milk pick-up to a different transporter as part of a route rationalization.

The appellant argued this would cause him to lose his co-operative membership and associated financial benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the DFO acted within its authority and that the rationalization achieved significant cost savings for the dairy industry as a whole, which outweighed the appellant's individual preference.

The Tribunal also denied the appellant's request for compensation.

The appellant, a hog assembler, appealed decisions of the respondent marketing board refusing to amend its policies regarding the marketing of 'lightweight' or 'off sort' hogs.

The appellant sought exemptions to allow it to market hogs in certain weight ranges and 'chance hogs' outside the respondent's single-desk system, arguing it needed these hogs to fill truckloads efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding weight categories and chance hogs, finding that altering the single-desk status would erode the respondent's marketing power and be contrary to the marketing plan.

The Tribunal remitted a new 5% exemption proposal back to the respondent for consideration.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant's request to retain a $0.25 per hog administration fee from service charges collected for the respondent on off-sort hogs.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Foster Municipal Drain, seeking to relocate the Main West Drain from the middle of their agricultural field.

The Tribunal found that the engineer who prepared the report lacked the necessary expertise under the Drainage Act, resulting in inadequate specifications, failure to properly cost alternatives, and a lack of understanding of special benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the report be referred to a new engineer to re-establish drainage boundaries, provide proper designs for either upgrading the existing drain or abandoning it in favour of expanding the Main East Drain, and to properly assess costs.

The appellants were granted the option to have the Main West Drain abandoned if they accept the special benefit assessment for the relocation.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report on the Foster Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the municipality to refer the report to a new engineer for reconsideration.

The new engineer was ordered to re-establish drainage boundaries, provide for the abandonment of certain branches, provide current profiles, and design upgrades to the Main West Drain or its abandonment.

The Tribunal also made orders regarding the apportionment of costs incurred to date.