Glenn C. Walker

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 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 applicants, who operate an outdoor cannabis grow area, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for relief from a municipal zoning by-law that required site plan approval and a 300-metre setback from residential lots.

The municipality argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, asserting the by-law provisions were legitimate land use planning issues.

The Board found that the cannabis operation met the definition of an agricultural operation under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board further determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, distinguishing the case from Oakville because the lands were zoned for agricultural use and cannabis cultivation was a permitted use, meaning the setback and site plan requirements were not purely land use planning issues that would deprive the Board of jurisdiction.

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 applicant greenhouse operator challenged a municipal by-law restricting artificial lighting as interfering with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot and refusing to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

The applicant greenhouse operator brought an application alleging that a municipal by-law restricting greenhouse lighting interfered with normal farm practices.

Before the hearing, the respondent municipality repealed the challenged by-law and replaced it with a new one.

The municipality brought a motion under section 8(1) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 to dismiss the application as frivolous because the underlying by-law no longer existed.

The Board granted the motion, finding the issues moot, and refused to hear the application, without prejudice to the applicant bringing a new application regarding the replacement by-law.

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 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.

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 moving parties brought a motion requesting an extension of time to file an appeal under Section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding a municipal drain.

The municipality opposed the motion, arguing prejudice as drainage work had already commenced under an emergency authorization.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had a bona fide intention to appeal, the municipality would be prejudiced, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as it misunderstood the purpose and scope of the Act.

The applicant brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances of noise and odour from the respondents' agricultural operation, which involved raising miniature goats and chickens on an adjacent property.

The Board found that the applicant was directly affected by the disturbances, which constituted an unreasonable and substantial interference with the use of her property.

The Board determined that the respondents' practice of housing livestock in multiple small sheds to avoid building permit requirements and Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) setbacks was not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to move the sheds to comply with the MDS II setback of 84 meters or cease using them to house livestock.

At a pre-hearing conference in a municipal drain matter, the Tribunal considered whether to accept an appeal purportedly brought under s. 54 of the Drainage Act from the Court of Revision.

The Tribunal held that the moving landowners had not filed an appeal to the Court of Revision and did not dispute their assessment, so there was no appealable decision under s. 54.

The concerns raised to the Court of Revision were outside that body's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal therefore declined to accept the appeal, while indicating that any further challenge to the drainage report would have to proceed, if at all, by a late motion seeking an extension of time for an appeal under ss. 48 and 100.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered on consent that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a Third Party.

The Board also ordered on consent that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the Municipality of Leamington concerning By-law Number 79-20.

Hearing dates were scheduled and procedural directions were given for disclosure and the presentation of evidence.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application by AMCO Farms Inc. challenging a municipal by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that this application be heard at the same time as six other applications challenging the same by-law.

The Board set hearing dates and directed the parties to develop plans for disclosure and the presentation of evidence.