Glenn Walker

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 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.

The appellant, a chicken processing facility, appealed a decision of the provincial chicken farming regulator denying its request for 286,553 kilograms of calculated base.

The appellant argued it had the closest connection to historical inter-provincial chicken supply purchases made by a former processor, and was therefore entitled to the calculated base under the regulator's policy.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not a licensed processor with a calculated base at the time of the regulatory re-basing, and therefore did not qualify for the allocation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) requested intervenor status in an appeal by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that OIPP failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the appeal, which primarily concerned a private contract and the calculated base of specific processors.

The Tribunal also noted that granting status could delay the hearing and increase costs for the parties.