Glenn C. Walker

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 applicants complained of noise disturbances from farm animals and a propane bird cannon on the respondents' neighbouring blueberry farm.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the farm animals constituted a petting zoo, not an agricultural operation, and thus the Board lacked jurisdiction over that complaint.

Regarding the bird cannon, the Board found it was part of an agricultural operation and that the applicants were directly affected by the noise.

The Board concluded that the use of the cannon is a normal farm practice, provided the respondents modify their practice to comply with specific conditions, including volume controls, frequency limits, and a 150-metre setback, to account for the site's unique topography.

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 applicant brought an application under sections 5 and 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from the respondents' property and seeking enforcement of a municipal noise by-law.

The Board dismissed the section 5 application without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to establish that the disturbances arose from an agricultural operation.

In the alternative, the Board found the application vexatious due to a concurrent civil action seeking the same relief.

The Board also dismissed the section 6 application, holding it had no jurisdiction to enforce municipal by-laws or order a municipality to do so.

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.

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 applicants brought an application claiming that normal farm practices were restricted by a Town of Caledon by-law.

Following a settlement and the withdrawal of individual applicants, a dispute arose over the ownership and control of the remaining corporate applicant, Love, Logic, Compassion Farms Inc. At a pre-hearing conference, the individuals involved stated they did not wish to continue with a hearing on the merits but refused to file a formal notice of withdrawal.

The Board found the application to be abandoned and frivolous, and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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 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.