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 applicant withdrew his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 two days before the scheduled hearing.

The respondent municipality sought costs, arguing the applicant engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to provide ordered disclosure, failing to attend a motion, and delaying the withdrawal.

The Board found the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and disrespectful of the Board's process, warranting a costs award.

However, the conduct was not deemed reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,097.05.

The applicants brought an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from propane cannons used for bird control at the respondent's vineyard.

The Board determined that the use of propane cannons consistent with OMAFA guidelines is a normal farm practice, but modified the practice pursuant to s. 5(4)(c) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to adhere to specific voluntary restrictions regarding the placement, volume, rotation, and frequency of the cannons in the vineyard.

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 appellants sought an extension of time under s. 100 of the Drainage Act to pursue a late appeal from an engineer’s report concerning a municipal drain.

The Tribunal held that use of the wrong generic notice form and citation to the wrong statutory provision was not fatal where the written materials clearly disclosed an intended appeal under s. 48(1) and satisfied the Tribunal’s procedural rule for commencing an appeal.

Applying the Tribunal’s four-factor extension test adopted from court practice, the Tribunal found a bona fide intention to appeal within time, no non-speculative prejudice to the municipality, a delay explained by the appellants’ mistaken pursuit of relief before the Court of Revision, and sufficient merit because the proposed grounds were recognized statutory grounds and not frivolous.

The extension was granted retroactive to the original filing date, Linda Horton was added as an appellant, and the municipality’s request to restrict the appeal grounds was refused on this motion.

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 applicant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, arguing that the respondent's disclosure raised new issues.

The applicant did not attend the motion, and his agent could not provide satisfactory explanations for his absence or his failure to comply with prior disclosure orders.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no cogent reason for delay and noting that the applicant's arguments were more appropriate for the hearing itself.

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 applicant farmer applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his use of Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs) to protect his cow-calf operation from coyotes was a normal farm practice, seeking relief from a municipal animal control by-law prohibiting dogs running at large.

The applicant used seven German Shepherds that frequently left his property and roamed the neighbourhood.

The Board heard expert evidence that while using LGDs is a normal farm practice, using German Shepherds is inappropriate and allowing LGDs to roam off the farm property is not a normal farm practice.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant's specific practice was not a normal farm practice and therefore not exempt from the municipal by-law.

The applicants sought leave to bring a motion to dismiss the respondents' claim for costs arising from a dismissed farm practices application.

The applicants argued that a prior finding of a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one panel member deprived the Board of jurisdiction to hear the costs motion, and that the matter was moot because their property had been destroyed by fire.

The Board applied the test for leave from Huang v. Braga and found that the proposed motion had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Board held that the original decision dismissing the application remained valid as it had not been set aside by an appellate court, and the costs issue remained a live controversy.

Leave was denied and the motion was dismissed.

The applicant filed applications under sections 5 and 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act regarding a proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and a related zoning by-law amendment.

The Board issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal Without A Hearing, noting it lacked jurisdiction because the BESS was not an agricultural operation, the alleged disturbances were not covered by the Act, and the facility had not yet been constructed.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction to repeal or quash municipal by-laws.

After receiving submissions, the Board dismissed both applications for lack of jurisdiction and because the applicant lacked a sufficient personal interest.

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 applicants, who operate a sheep and fowl farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board after their Livestock Guardian Dog (LGD) was designated a 'Dangerous Dog' under a municipal by-law following an incident where the dog bit a child who entered the barn at night.

The designation required the dog to be confined, leashed, and muzzled, preventing it from protecting the flock from predators.

The Board found that the applicants' use of the LGD, despite the dangerous dog designation, constituted a normal farm practice under the specific circumstances.

The Board ruled that the by-law's confinement, leashing, and muzzling requirements restricted this normal farm practice and therefore do not apply to the applicants while the dog is actively engaged as an LGD on their property.

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 respondents sought costs against the self-represented applicant after the Board dismissed the applicant's applications under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 as frivolous and vexatious.

The Board found that the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts and seeking similar relief prior to applying to the Board, constituting a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Board held that the threshold for awarding costs against an unrepresented litigant was met.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs fixed at $7,350 to the respondents.