Glenn C. Walker

The appellants, licensed milk producers, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for relief following an altercation with a milk transport driver.

The DFO brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellants' harassment complaint against the driver and transport company, as well as their claim for monetary compensation for dumped milk.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the appellants' requests to permanently remove the driver from their route and to replace the transport company, finding an insufficient evidentiary record to determine if those issues were moot or trivial.

The motion was granted in part, with two issues proceeding to a full hearing.

The self-represented appellants brought a motion for the production of documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion because the appellants failed to provide affidavit evidence, as required by Rule 30.03(v) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, to establish the factual context and relevancy of the requested documents.

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the appellants to bring a new motion in compliance with the rules.

The applicant brought a motion seeking the recusal of the Chair of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Chair's previous unfavourable rulings on production motions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The Tribunal concluded that making an unfavourable interlocutory decision does not demonstrate pre-judgment or bias, and that the recusal motion was an improper collateral attack on the underlying motion decisions.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) brought a motion for party status in an appeal under the Drainage Act regarding a petition for drainage works.

The Township of Zorra had previously declined to proceed with the drainage works because the potential outlet was subject to a court order requiring the petitioner to rehabilitate lands under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the UTRCA's motion, finding that while its interests might be affected if an engineer's report is eventually produced, its intervention as a party at this preliminary stage of the appeal was premature.

The appellants, out-of-province sheep producers, brought a motion for disclosure of documents from the Ontario Sheep Farmers regarding the collection of license fees and the granting of exemptions to out-of-province producers.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the disclosure of documents from 2017 onwards relating to exemptions granted to out-of-province producers, other provincial organizations, and Ontario producers, finding them arguably relevant to the appellants' claims of arbitrary and discriminatory application of the exemption policy.

The respondent distributor brought a motion for the production of financial and other documents used by the applicant dealer's expert in preparing a draft report on damages arising from the termination of their dealership agreement.

The applicant argued the motion was premature because the expert report was only a draft.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding the documents were relevant to the assessment of damages and that foundational documents relied upon by an expert must be disclosed to enable the opposing party to assess its position.

The applicant, a terminated farm implements dealer, brought a motion seeking the production of financial and sales documents from the respondent manufacturer and a successor dealership.

The applicant argued the documents were necessary to calculate damages based on the successor's financial performance.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent did not have possession, control, or power over the successor's documents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to order production from the successor dealership as a non-party, concluding that the requested documents were not relevant to the established method of calculating damages based on past performance, and that the prejudice of disclosing confidential information to a competitor outweighed any unfairness to the applicant.

The Canadian Sheep Federation and three provincial sheep organizations brought a motion for participant status in an appeal challenging the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency's license fee and exemption policy.

The moving parties argued the policy acts as an inter-provincial trade barrier affecting out-of-province producers.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Sheep Federation, finding it could provide useful contextual and historical evidence without causing injustice to the respondent.

The motions by the three provincial organizations were dismissed, as they are members of the Canadian Sheep Federation and will have a voice through that organization.

The Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency brought a preliminary motion to dismiss an appeal by two non-resident sheep producers regarding the collection of license fees.

The Agency argued the producers lacked a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the producers were aggrieved persons who were required to pay fees and thus had a sufficient interest to be entitled to a hearing on the merits.

The appellant, representing licensed chicken processors, appealed a reconsideration decision of the respondent local board regarding the collection of data for the Cost of Production Formula used to set minimum live chicken prices.

The appellant requested that the respondent collect specific data on third-party labour costs, feed cost discounts, and government payments in its Operating Costs Survey, which the respondent refused.

The Tribunal held a bifurcated hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the respondent's decision was discretionary and not mandated by legislation, and because the pricing of chicken is determined by a negotiating agency, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion for an extension of time to file appeals under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act regarding a municipal drain.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the section 48 appeals, finding a bona fide intention to appeal, a reasonable excuse for the short delay due to illness, and triable issues.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion regarding the section 54 appeals because no such appeals had actually been filed to date, leaving the length of delay undetermined.

The applicant purchased a farm implement from the respondent and later cancelled the order.

The respondent agreed to refund the $28,890 purchase price but failed to do so.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Farm Implements Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint on its own motion under Rule 33.01, finding that the dispute was a contractual matter outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that while the respondent was unregistered, enforcement of registration requirements falls to the Director and the Provincial Offences Court, not the Tribunal.

The applicants filed a complaint against the respondent seeking $7,000 in compensation for the cost and delay of repairs to a tractor that was no longer under warranty.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal Without a Hearing, questioning its jurisdiction to hear the matter under the Farm Implements Act.

After receiving no submissions from the parties, the Tribunal determined that the Act does not provide a remedy for disputes based solely on a contract of repair for an out-of-warranty farm implement.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 33.01 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a reconsideration decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission regarding a new Cost of Production formula.

The appellant sought six amendments to the formula, including changes to the prime rate calculation, exclusion of depreciation from working capital, adjustments to farm labour benefit and wage rates, use of a real rate of return, and addition of a risk premium.

After hearing extensive expert testimony from all parties, the Tribunal found the expert evidence presented by the respondent and third party to be more reliable and acceptable on all six issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a mid-sized dairy processor, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to invoice it retroactively at the highest class price for milk deliveries after multiple audits found its production records unreliable and unverifiable.

The appellant argued that the retroactive invoice constituted an unauthorized penalty under the Milk Act and that DFO lacked authority to impose it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 24 of DFO General Regulation 10/17 authorizes DFO to charge the highest class price when a processor fails to provide verifiable milk utilization declarations.

The Tribunal also held that the surcharge was not a penalty but a mechanism to ensure fair compensation to dairy farmers.

Finally, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a prior settlement agreement between the parties.

The appellant, an inactive egg grading station and quota holder, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) refusing to enact a 'directed marketing' policy that would require producers to market eggs to it.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had standing as an aggrieved person, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order EFO to exercise its discretionary delegated powers to create such a policy.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was vexatious and brought in bad faith, as it was pursued concurrently with civil litigation raising similar issues and alongside three other withdrawn appeals.

The appeal was dismissed without a hearing, and costs of $8,842.25 were awarded to the respondent.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties made oral submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the appeal should be dismissed before a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow, and set a schedule for written submissions on costs.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party and therefore qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate issues regarding the Early Egg Removal Program and Early Fowl Removal Program.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal because the appellant requested an order directed to it.

The motion was granted, and the OFPMC was granted participant status.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party, and consequently qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.