Glenn C. Walker

The Appellants, dairy farmers whose farm was placed in receivership, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying exemptions to quota policies that would allow the farm to be sold as an ongoing operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that the Appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter.

The Tribunal held that the Receiver had sole authority over the farm assets and the decision to appeal, and the Appellants could not establish a sufficient financial or legal interest to pursue the appeal in their personal capacity.

The appellant appealed a municipal drainage report under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits of the proposed works were not commensurate with the estimated costs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed erosion and sediment control works would benefit the drainage area, the works were not currently required and were deferred to an undetermined future date.

Consequently, assessing properties now for the engineering fees of possible future improvements was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the municipality to pay 50% of the engineering fees out of general funds.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision not to proceed with a request for drainage improvements under section 78 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because subsection 78(4) only contemplates appeals after an engineer's report has been prepared.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) brought a motion for party status in an appeal under the Drainage Act concerning drainage works on the appellant's lands.

The appellant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that UTRCA's intervention as a party was premature, consistent with a previous decision involving the same parties, because the engineer's report appealed from was not a report concerning the construction of drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for party status but exercised its discretion to add UTRCA as a Participant with limited rights.

The respondent sought costs against the applicant following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to recuse the Tribunal Chair.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the recusal motion was unreasonable and frivolous, as it lacked factual evidence of bias and was an improper collateral attack on previous interlocutory decisions.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award substantial indemnity costs as the conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing the appeals were premature as construction was ongoing.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under the Drainage Act or its Rules of Procedure to dismiss the appeals without a hearing on the basis of prematurity.

However, relying on its power to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal vacated the scheduled hearing dates and stayed the appeals until the drainage works are certified as complete.

The appellant appealed four decisions of AgriCorp regarding his crop insurance for his vineyard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2022 Grape Vine Rider claim, finding that vines dying after the coverage period ended were not eligible.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2023 Grape Coverage, finding the appellant could not challenge the policy terms after accepting them.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2023 Grape Production claim, finding the loss was caused by powdery mildew (an excluded peril) rather than excessive rainfall.

Finally, the Tribunal upheld AgriCorp's cancellation of the 2024 policy because the appellant breached the contract by denying AgriCorp access to his property.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by St. Brigid's Dairy Ltd. regarding a request for 2023 incentive days and changes to DFO policies.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal regarding the 2023 incentive days, finding it was filed out of time, the appellant had previously abandoned an identical appeal, and the claim for financial compensation was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims without a hearing because the appellant failed to first apply to the DFO board for a hearing as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appellant sought $1,000 in costs against a non-party and a newly added party for an improperly brought motion to be added as a party to a drainage appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs, finding no authority to award costs against a non-party and concluding that the added party's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.

The Tribunal noted that costs should only be ordered in the most egregious circumstances, which were not present here.

The appellant brought a motion for an order directing the respondent municipality and third parties to produce various planning and environmental documents related to lands within the watershed of a proposed drain.

The appellant argued the documents were necessary to evaluate the drain's impact on its property.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to provide evidentiary foundation, such as expert affidavit evidence, to prove the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issues of flow and contamination on the appeal.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the construction of the Desroches Municipal Drain across their farm.

They claimed damages for crop loss and site cleanup, alleging the contractor commenced work in wet conditions contrary to an agreed-upon start date, failed to separate topsoil, and enlarged the working corridor.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of an agreed start date and concluding that the construction and site restoration were completed in accordance with the Engineer's Report.

The Tribunal also noted that several of the appellants' claims regarding the drain's design and crop damage allowances should have been appealed earlier under section 48 of the Act.

The appellants brought a preliminary motion requesting the Tribunal determine the scope of its jurisdiction to provide relief under the Ontario Human Rights Code prior to a full hearing, and seeking an order for disclosure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it could not determine its jurisdiction without a full evidentiary hearing to establish the facts of the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the disclosure request, characterizing it as a fishing expedition lacking a proper evidentiary basis.

The appellants appealed under section 58(5) of the Drainage Act, alleging that the respondent municipality failed to proceed with reasonable dispatch with the construction of the Zettler Municipal Drain after passing the provisional by-law.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's engineer had submitted the report and the municipality had tendered the project prematurely, before obtaining necessary environmental permits from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to apply for the required permits without delay and to amend the engineer's report if required by the conservation authority.

The appellant, an Alberta sheep farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Farmers (OSF) regarding the collection of licence fees on lambs sold into Ontario.

The Tribunal found the appellant lacked standing on several issues but had standing to challenge the application of the licencing regime to non-resident producers.

The Tribunal interpreted the General Regulations and found they did not clearly exempt non-resident producers from paying licence fees, exceeding OSF's authority.

The Tribunal ordered OSF to amend its regulations to explicitly state that no licence fee shall be charged to non-resident producers and to issue a directive stopping such deductions.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a reconsideration decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to replace their assigned milk transporter.

The dispute arose after an altercation between the appellant and a bulk tank milk grader, which led to rejected milk pickups and the appellant signing an undertaking.

Although the specific grader was permanently removed from the appellants' route prior to the hearing, the appellants continued to seek a new transporter.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the transporter should be replaced, noting the DFO's responsibility to minimize transportation costs province-wide.

The Township of South-West Oxford applied to the Tribunal under subsection 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment for the Spitler Creek Drain.

The last report was completed in the mid-1970s, and numerous severances have occurred since.

Both townships consented to the application.

The Tribunal granted permission to procure the report.

The Township of South-West Oxford applied on consent for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment for the Koteles Drain under section 76(1) of the Drainage Act.

The parties agreed that the maintenance schedule needed updating because there was no separate assessment schedule for Branch 'A' of the drain.

The Tribunal granted the application and permitted the procurement of the report.

The Appellants brought a motion for the production of documents, including a contract between the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and a milk transporter, GPS records, correspondence, and records of a third party's expulsion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were either irrelevant to the remaining issues in the appeal or constituted a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal also noted that some requests had been rescinded in a previous motion.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of a production order pending a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that it had no inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay and that neither the Farm Implements Act nor its Rules of Procedure provided such jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to apply the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the applicant must first obtain an extension from the Divisional Court before bringing its motion for leave to appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent, CLAAS of America Inc., sought costs of $5,348.40 against the applicant, Sunova Implement Ltd., following two motions for the production of documents.

The Tribunal found that Sunova's conduct in bringing its own motion without providing evidence of relevancy, and in resisting CLAAS's motion without evidence that the requested documents were irrelevant, was unreasonable.

The Tribunal awarded costs to CLAAS in the requested amount of $5,348.40 on a partial indemnity basis.