Harold McNeely

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.

Two landowners appealed their assessments for the proposed South Tributary Municipal Drain.

The first appellant argued his property could not be developed and should not be assessed, but provided no evidence to support changing the Engineer's Report; his appeal was dismissed.

The second appellant argued his properties drained south and did not use the proposed drain's outlet.

The Tribunal accepted the second appellant's photographic and topographic evidence, ordering his properties removed from the drainage area and their assessments reallocated to the road authority.

The appellant brought a motion to amend a previous Tribunal order requiring it to provide a $3.3 million letter of credit to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) as security during an appeal.

The appellant requested that the Tribunal hold the security instead of DFO and that DFO be prevented from realizing the security until 90 days after the Tribunal's order becomes final.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, declining to act as an escrow agent to avoid becoming a party to future litigation.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to order the security held past the date the decision becomes final under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, as it would be functus officio.

The appellants, a dairy farm and its owner, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to cancel their milk operating licence.

The cancellation followed a third shut-off from the milk market within a 24-month period due to elevated somatic cell counts and abnormal freezing point estimates.

The appellants argued the quality issues were caused by defective robotic milking equipment and poor technical support.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's decision, finding that the appellants had received numerous warnings and failed to take timely corrective action, such as returning to a pipeline milking system, thereby posing an unacceptable risk to the safety and integrity of the milk marketing system.

The Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens (UCFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for reaccreditation and eligibility for special funding under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the documentary evidence, including UCFO's Triennial Report, financial statements, and letters of support from other accredited farm organizations.

Finding that UCFO met all the statutory and regulatory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application, confirming UCFO's eligibility for special funding for a three-year period ending November 8, 2023.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a pre-hearing conference to address allegations that counsel breached a prior confidentiality order regarding restricted access motions.

The Tribunal found no intentional disclosures of confidential material by either party.

To ensure clarity moving forward, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering that all materials related to the restricted access request, including third-party materials, remain confidential and sealed.

The Tribunal also established a formal motion process for third parties seeking participant or intervenor status on the restricted access motion.

The respondent, a Quebec-based farm equipment dealer, brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's dispute under the Farm Implements Act for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent argued it had no physical location in Ontario and relied on a choice of law clause in the contract specifying Quebec law.

The Tribunal found a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the respondent advertised, delivered, and serviced equipment in Ontario, and was registered as a dealer under the Ontario Act.

The Tribunal also found the choice of law clause unenforceable as an unfair term because it was not brought to the applicant's attention.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The appellants, who are pullet and egg producers, appealed decisions of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding policies and procedures for leasing pullet quota.

The appellants challenged the May 2018 and January 2019 Pullet Leasing Pool Policies, arguing they were adopted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and penalized new farmers.

The Tribunal found that EFO acted transparently, consulted with producers, and implemented the policies within its mandate to manage the quota system efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the policies were not punitive but served to fulfill the intended goals of the quota system.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent requested a review of a prior Tribunal decision that set aside an engineer's report (the Spriet Report) for a municipal drain and ordered the Municipality to retain an independent coastal engineer.

The Municipality argued the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, improperly relied on hearsay evidence, and erred in summoning the coastal engineer to testify at the review hearing.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov, the Review Panel affirmed the prior decision.

The Panel held that the Tribunal had the statutory authority under the Drainage Act to procure independent engineering reports and that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the admission of hearsay evidence.

The Review Panel found no breach of procedural fairness in summoning the coastal engineer to allow for cross-examination, and concluded the original panel provided rational reasons for setting aside the Spriet Report.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) provide the Tribunal with eleven categories of documents pursuant to subsection 16(7) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal interpreted subsection 16(7) as requiring the regulatory decision-maker to forward the essential elements of the decision-making record, not to provide broad documentary discovery.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had already discharged its statutory obligation by providing the relevant audit reports, correspondence, and board minutes that informed its decision.

The motion was dismissed as an improper attempt at broad documentary discovery.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to define the scope of a statutory stay arising from an appeal by Skotidakis Goat Farm against a DFO decision imposing retroactive assessments and other penalties.

The Tribunal held that the statutory stay did not suspend DFO's regulatory authority to conduct ongoing inspections and audits outside the scope of the appealed decision.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal also ordered the Appellants to preserve original production records and post financial security of approximately $3.3 million (representing two months of average milk purchases) pending the final disposition of the appeal.

The Attorney General brought a motion to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a scheduled constitutional challenge hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would unnecessarily disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in court, and stated that issues of reliability and weight could be addressed during the hearing.

The Attorney General moved to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a constitutional challenge hearing before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court of law, leaving issues of reliability and weight for later determination.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and allowances in the Engineer's Report for the South Innisfil Creek Drain Improvement under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that the municipality should bear more costs due to past lack of maintenance, and that the drain improvements would not benefit them until downstream culverts were replaced.

A golf course owner appealed the allowance for loss of access, arguing it should cover four bridges instead of one.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals, finding the engineer's allocations fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal allowed the golf course's appeal in part, increasing the allowance for one bridge from $41,600 to $137,500 based on expert evidence, while agreeing that only one bridge should be funded by the drain.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the St. John's Marsh Drain.

The appellant argued that the proposed abandonment of a section of the drain within conservation lands and the installation of a weir would exacerbate flooding on his agricultural lands.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's recommendation to abandon the unfindable section of the drain within the conservation lands but ordered the removal of the proposed Newbury Weir from the report to prevent further aggravation of the appellant's drainage issues.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.

Several landowners requested a review of the Tribunal's Amended Decision regarding the Switzer and McLean Switzer Municipal Drains.

The applicants challenged the Tribunal's order that 50% of the engineering costs up to the first published report be levied against the governing by-laws of each drain, arguing the costs should be borne solely by the landowner who initiated the request under section 78 of the Drainage Act.

The Vice-Chair denied the requests for review, finding no significant new evidence or material error of law or fact.

The Vice-Chair affirmed that the Tribunal has discretion under section 48 to determine the portion of costs to be borne by affected landowners, and that the original panel's allocation was reasonable.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing an engineer to amend a drainage report, the appellant appealed the revised assessments.

At the hearing, the appellant presented no evidence challenging the assessments, instead attempting to relitigate the previously decided issue of how excavated material should be divided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process.

Finding the hearing unnecessary, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs to both the municipality and the co-appellant.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's report for the Mullen Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal ordered modifications to the report, including centering the open drain on the property line, removing an earth berm and drop inlet structures, and placing excavated material on the Mullen property.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's methodology for the benefit and outlet liability assessments but ordered recalculations based on the modified works.