Glenn Walker

The appellants appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) removing them from the New Producer Program (NPP) queue.

The DFO determined the appellants were ineligible because the husband held voting shares in his parents' dairy corporation, making him an existing producer under the Quota Policy.

The appellants argued the shareholding was minimal and they made an honest mistake on the application.

The Tribunal found the husband was a producer under the policy and that the appellants' mistake did not constitute unique or exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to award damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Association of Ontario Chicken Processors, brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission, to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for the annual hatching egg producer hours considered in the cost of production formula.

The respondent argued the issue of all production hours was not properly before the Tribunal and that the motion was an improper attempt to request new evidence.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to order particulars related to management labour hours, which were properly under appeal, but not production labour hours.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the respondent to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for management hours.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Filsinger Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of certain lands in the watershed, the scope and cost of the proposed drainage work, the right-of-way allowances, and the assessment calculations.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals regarding the watershed and drainage work, finding the existing drain was in poor condition and the proposed improvements were necessary.

The Tribunal allowed one appellant's appeal in part, increasing his right-of-way allowance based on a higher land value.

The Tribunal also allowed the section 54 appeals in part, adjusting the maintenance assessments for the upstream reach of the closed drain, but otherwise upheld the engineer's assessment calculations.

The applicant, a farmer, applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from registering his farm and making a mandatory payment to a farm organization.

The Tribunal applied a three-pronged test derived from labour relations case law to determine if the objection was based on genuinely held religious beliefs.

While finding the applicant's beliefs were genuinely held, the Tribunal concluded they were primarily philosophical rather than religious, and that the actual cause of the application was to avoid the administrative burden of requesting an annual refund.

The application was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Filsinger Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of certain lands in the watershed, the scope and cost of the proposed drainage work, the right-of-way allowances, and the assessment calculations.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals regarding the watershed and drainage work, finding the existing drain was in poor condition and the proposed work was necessary.

The Tribunal allowed Tyson Kraemer's section 48 appeal in part, increasing his right-of-way allowance.

The Tribunal also allowed the section 54 appeals in part, adjusting the maintenance assessments for the upstream reach of the closed drain, but otherwise accepted the Engineer's assessment calculations.

The Appellants appealed a decision classifying their farm as unsanitary non-Grade A and shutting it off from the milk market after they refused to allow a Grade A inspection.

The Respondent brought a motion to refuse to hear the appeal under subsection 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and not made in good faith.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no legal merit, as market access requires compliance with inspection laws, and was brought for the improper purpose of harassing officials.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal and awarded $7,500 in costs against the Appellants for their unacceptable conduct.

The appellants appealed their drainage assessments for the Purbrook Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued they received no benefit from the drain, noting their lands were zoned for environmental protection and could not be farmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants were attempting to re-litigate a 1981 decision of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal and had failed to establish any change in the state or use of their lands since that time.

Requests for costs by both the municipality and the appellants were denied, as neither party's conduct during the proceedings was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain on his property under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

He alleged the contractor failed to properly separate logs from brush, failed to level the site, and crushed existing drainage tiles.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that logs were improperly mixed with brush and the site required further grading, but dismissed the claim regarding crushed tiles.

The appeal was granted in part, and the municipality was ordered to complete the grading and sorting of debris.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for a new municipal drain, challenging the lack of alternative routes, the right of way allowances, and the benefit assessments to their property.

The Tribunal found that no feasible alternative routes existed due to topography and upheld the right of way allowances as fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed drain provided no agricultural or developmental benefit to the appellants' lands.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the section 22 benefit assessment and the upstream maintenance assessment to zero, while maintaining the section 23 outlet assessment.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the CFFO met all the necessary requirements, including corporate structure, membership numbers, local branch contributions, and the provision of agricultural education and advocacy, the Tribunal granted the application.

The CFFO was re-accredited for a three-year period commencing December 6, 2015.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the OFA's application against the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 723/93, as amended.

Finding that the OFA met all the necessary requirements, including those related to membership, financial contributions to local branches, and the provision of education and advocacy, the Tribunal granted the application and re-accredited the OFA for a three-year period.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the prescribed criteria in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the NFU-O met all the criteria, including membership numbers, local branch requirements, and financial reporting, the Tribunal granted the re-accreditation for a three-year period.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report on the Newbiggen Drive Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that a berm included in the final report was unnecessary and lacked adequate specifications.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the engineer's evidence regarding the berm's necessity and location was unconvincing.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the berm from the report and directed the engineer to correct several other errors and deficiencies in the report, including pipe lengths, specifications, and cost estimates, at the engineer's own expense.

The appellant requested a review of the Tribunal's decision refusing to hear his appeal regarding the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's 300-bird exemption policy.

The Tribunal had previously directed the appellant to restrict his appeal to the exemption policy, but he filed a 98-page revised notice of appeal seeking extensive relief outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair found that while the appeal might not have been entirely frivolous or vexatious if restricted to the exemption policy, the appellant's insistence on using the appeal as a platform for a personal political agenda constituted an abuse of process and bad faith.

The request for review was denied.

Several landowners appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act concerning the relocation and improvement of the Baillie Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the works were unnecessary, would cause maintenance issues, and that the process was flawed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants had no standing to appeal on the basis of benefits not being commensurate with costs since they were not assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal also found the proposed works, including the relocation of the drain and replacement of culverts, to be reasonable and in compliance with the Act's procedural requirements.

The appellants appealed their drainage assessment for the Gilbert Drain 2014, arguing that their assessment was too high and that upstream owners, particularly a wetland property, were assessed too little.

The Tribunal found that the engineer properly applied the modified Todgham method, correctly assigning a lower runoff coefficient to the wetlands compared to agricultural lands.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellants' argument regarding injuring liability, noting that the drain is a municipal drain governed by the Drainage Act, not common law.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were confirmed as fair and equitable.

The appellant appealed a specialty chicken policy enacted by the respondent marketing board.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent revoked the policy and enacted a new one.

The appellant sought to continue the appeal, arguing its members suffered irreparable damage from the previous policy.

The respondent and an intervener argued the appeal must be dismissed as the policy no longer existed.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to continue the appeal because the appealed policy was revoked, and the appellant must first apply to the marketing board for a hearing regarding the new policy as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) regarding the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's (CFO) Specialty Chicken Policy No. 199-2013.

AOCP argued the policy had been effectively replaced by subsequent CFO decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature since the policy had not yet been officially withdrawn.

However, the Tribunal granted an adjournment of the substantive hearing to allow CFO time to complete its policy review and align it with the national policy.

The appellants, dairy farmers operating an organic farm, appealed a decision imposing a $530.46 penalty after a milk sample from their bulk tank tested positive for an abnormal freezing point.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative and questioned the collection, transportation, and testing methods, citing extreme cold weather and potential human error.

The Tribunal found that the respondent followed all proper procedures to maintain the integrity of the sample and that the appellants' challenge was based on pure speculation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Wakem-Weir Drain 2013, arguing their property was already systematically drained and derived no benefit from the proposed new drain.

The Tribunal found that while the property derived some benefit from the new catch basins and drain configuration, the assessment was excessive because the new drain was unusually deep and did not provide 'Cut-off Benefit' or improve crop production.

The Tribunal ordered significant reductions to the appellants' benefit and outlet assessments, redistributing the reduced amounts pro rata to upstream lands and roads, including a special assessment to Enbridge.