Glenn Walker

The appellants challenged an administrative decision finding that they illegally transported milk between two separately licensed dairy facilities operating on the same property and imposing $10,000 in penalties.

The Tribunal held a de novo hearing and applied the civil standard of proof, requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence because of the serious licensing consequences.

It found the respondent's case was entirely circumstantial and did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that milk had been moved contrary to the regulation.

The tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation for unusual production patterns and found the trailer-mounted tank evidence inconsistent with clandestine milk transfer.

The decision and penalties were set aside, and any deducted penalties were ordered credited back.

The applicant brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that a municipal zoning by-law restricted his agricultural operation by preventing access to his landlocked property and prohibiting agricultural use on lots under one acre.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board held a preliminary hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

While the Board found the applicant met the threshold definition of operating an agricultural operation, it concluded that the by-law provisions in question related to land use planning rather than the restriction of a specific normal farm practice.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from land use planning provisions or to make declarations regarding public roadways.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that a municipal by-law restricted a normal farm practice for a proposed 32-unit residential building with a greenhouse.

The municipality challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant, a non-profit entity, would not be carrying on an agricultural operation with an expectation of gain or reward.

Furthermore, applying Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the land use provisions of a zoning by-law to permit a high-density residential use in an agricultural zone.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought $125,000 in costs following a successful application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, alleging the respondent municipality engaged in unreasonable conduct by shifting its position, failing to present evidence, and maligning character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the applicants' costs request, finding the municipality's conduct was not unreasonable.

The Board awarded the municipality $1,000 in costs for having to respond to the applicants' substantially meritless costs request.

The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers (OGVG) brought a motion to be added as a party to an application by Great Lakes Greenhouses Inc. challenging a municipal by-law restricting supplemental greenhouse lighting.

The municipality opposed the motion.

The Board found that OGVG, as the regulatory body for greenhouse vegetable production in Ontario, was directly affected by the outcome and could make a useful contribution to the technical aspects of the case.

The motion was granted and OGVG was added as a party.

The applicants brought several motions before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board in an ongoing nuisance dispute.

The Board granted leave to amend the application to include additional nuisance claims regarding manure odours, dust, and deadstock disposal.

The Board denied the applicant's request for a personal site visit, reiterating that only a qualified expert could attend.

The Board confirmed its jurisdiction over agricultural operations on unopened municipal road allowances.

Finally, the Board dismissed the applicants' contempt motion regarding disclosure, finding the respondents had complied, and awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondents due to the applicants' vexatious conduct.

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 Applicants brought a motion for disclosure and interrogatories in a nuisance application regarding manure and bale management.

The Board ordered partial disclosure of farm locations, bale counts, and equipment details, but denied requests for irrelevant information such as employment history and crop types.

The Board also ruled that documents related to the mandatory Conflict Resolution process were protected by litigation privilege.

Furthermore, the Board established a general rule that the mediator who conducted the Conflict Resolution process will not be permitted to testify as an expert witness due to an apprehension of bias, unless the party seeking to call them can prove they are the sole person with the necessary expertise.

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.

The applicants in a farm nuisance dispute brought a motion seeking an order to close the application hearing to the public under section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

They alleged various incidents of harassment, intimidation, and community hostility, expressing fear that an open hearing would exacerbate these issues and lead to disruptions.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate that matters of public security or intimate personal matters would be disclosed at the hearing.

The Board emphasized the fundamental principle of open hearings and noted its power to eject anyone who disrupts the proceedings.

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 applicant applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise, odour, and fly disturbances from the respondents' property.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the respondents' property qualified as an 'agricultural operation' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Board found that the respondents' activities, which included renting land, growing hay for their own horses, and operating a therapeutic horse program, lacked an expectation of gain or reward.

Consequently, the Board concluded the property was a hobby farm, not an agricultural operation, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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 applicant sought a determination that municipal by-laws restricted its proposed normal farm practices for cannabis cultivation.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether the Board's home statute, the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, was repugnant to the federal Cannabis Act under the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The Board held that it could not apply the paramountcy test until a full hearing determined the specific farm practices at issue.

The jurisdiction issue was deferred to a full hearing.

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 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.