Fred Stulp

The appellant, Association of Ontario Chicken Processors, brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission, to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for the annual hatching egg producer hours considered in the cost of production formula.

The respondent argued the issue of all production hours was not properly before the Tribunal and that the motion was an improper attempt to request new evidence.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to order particulars related to management labour hours, which were properly under appeal, but not production labour hours.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the respondent to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for management hours.

The appellants, who are pullet and egg producers, appealed decisions of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding policies and procedures for leasing pullet quota.

The appellants challenged the May 2018 and January 2019 Pullet Leasing Pool Policies, arguing they were adopted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and penalized new farmers.

The Tribunal found that EFO acted transparently, consulted with producers, and implemented the policies within its mandate to manage the quota system efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the policies were not punitive but served to fulfill the intended goals of the quota system.

The Appellants appealed a decision classifying their farm as unsanitary non-Grade A and shutting it off from the milk market after they refused to allow a Grade A inspection.

The Respondent brought a motion to refuse to hear the appeal under subsection 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and not made in good faith.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no legal merit, as market access requires compliance with inspection laws, and was brought for the improper purpose of harassing officials.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal and awarded $7,500 in costs against the Appellants for their unacceptable conduct.

The appellant appealed the allocation of $15,000 in engineering costs assessed against his property for a proposed improvement to a municipal drain.

The appellant had requested the improvement but later withdrew the request.

The municipality then instructed its engineer to prepare a report under section 40 of the Drainage Act stating the works were not required, resulting in additional costs.

The Tribunal found that the initial $9,000 in engineering work benefited all properties in the watershed and should be assessed against the drain under the existing by-law.

The Tribunal further held that the municipality erred in directing a section 40 report, and ordered the remaining $6,000 to be paid out of the municipality's general funds.

The appellant, a chicken producer and elected District Committee Representative (DCR), appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (the Board) suspending its dealings with him after he refused to sign a Code of Business Conduct and Confidentiality Agreement.

The appellant argued the Board lacked the legal authority to impose these requirements or to suspend him.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board has broad by-law making authority under the Farm Products Marketing Act to regulate its governance and affairs.

The Tribunal held that requiring DCRs to sign the agreements is consistent with modern corporate governance best practices and that the Board has the authority to restrict access to confidential information for DCRs who refuse to sign.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) brought a motion under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to dismiss the appellant's appeal.

The CFO argued the appellant had knowledge of the impugned by-laws for more than one year and that the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or not made in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appeal challenged the CFO's legal authority to enact the by-laws, and that using s. 16(4) to shield potentially unlawful by-laws from review was not the legislature's intent.

The appellant appealed his drainage assessment under the Drainage Act, arguing that his land's designation as a provincially significant wetland constituted a change in use warranting a reduction in his assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the statutory threshold for an appeal because his assessment amount had not changed.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held that a change in environmental designation did not constitute a change in the extent to which the lands used the drainage works.

Requests for abandonment of the drain and future damages were also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to follow statutory procedures.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing an engineer to amend a drainage report, the appellant appealed the revised assessments.

At the hearing, the appellant presented no evidence challenging the assessments, instead attempting to relitigate the previously decided issue of how excavated material should be divided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process.

Finding the hearing unnecessary, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs to both the municipality and the co-appellant.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's report for the Mullen Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal ordered modifications to the report, including centering the open drain on the property line, removing an earth berm and drop inlet structures, and placing excavated material on the Mullen property.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's methodology for the benefit and outlet liability assessments but ordered recalculations based on the modified works.

The appellants appealed the assessments for the Stephenson Branch and the Cuthbert Branch of the Henderson Creek Drain 2015 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the benefit assessment percentages applied to the appellants' property were excessive and reduced them.

The Tribunal also found that it was unreasonable to charge the appellants for the costs of revising the Engineer's Report after other landowners objected to the proposed abandonment of the Cuthbert Branch, as the duty to ensure majority support for abandonment falls on the Engineer and the Township under section 84 of the Act.

The appeal was granted in part, with the assessments revised and the report revision costs removed from the project cost.

The appellant, an egg producer, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding its Layer Leasing Pool (LLP) policy.

The LLP distributed market growth production rights equally among quota holders via an annual lease, rather than on a historical pro-rata basis.

The appellant argued the equal distribution was unfair to large producers and promoted inefficiency.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the LLP was developed through a reasonable process considering stakeholder input, new entrant access, and risk management, and the appellant failed to prove the policy was contrary to legislation or outside EFO's authority.