Harold McNeely

Integrated Farming Ltd. (IFL), a joint venture between a tomato processor and a farming enterprise, appealed a decision by the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers denying it a licence to produce and market tomatoes for processing.

The Board had refused the licence on the basis that the joint venture was an arrangement designed to circumvent pricing restrictions and achieve a lower price for tomatoes.

The Tribunal found that the joint venture had legitimate business purposes, including supply chain control and product differentiation, and that the Board failed to prove the arrangement was solely to circumvent pricing.

The Tribunal ordered the Board to issue the producer licence to IFL.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal their assessment for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

They initially chose not to appeal the Court of Revision's decision due to cost concerns, but sought an extension after the tendered project cost significantly exceeded the engineer's estimate.

The Tribunal applied the Bellcraft factors and denied the motion, finding the applicants made a conscious decision not to appeal within the statutory timeframe, failed to provide evidence supporting their objection to the assessment, and did not demonstrate that the delay would not prejudice other affected landowners.

Appeals were brought under the Drainage Act regarding the Engineer's Report for the proposed StageCoach Road East and West Municipal Drains.

The drains were petitioned for by developers to provide a legal outlet for stormwater from a new residential subdivision.

Downstream landowners, including an active farmer, appealed, arguing the drains were unnecessary and would burden their lands.

The developers also appealed their assessments.

The Tribunal found that the subdivision lands already had sufficient outlet to overdesigned stormwater ponds, and the downstream lands did not require drainage.

The Tribunal set aside the Engineer's Report, cancelling the drainage projects, and ordered the developers and the City to share the non-administrative costs incurred by the municipality.

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

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence against the statutory criteria, including the organization's promotion of agricultural awareness among francophones, provision of advice to governments, and maintenance of ties with other farm organizations.

The Tribunal found that the UCFO met all conditions and criteria for eligibility.

The application for special funding was granted for a three-year period.

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 Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission brought a motion arguing the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over an appeal by the Ontario Dairy Council.

The Commission contended its decision to allow a convenience store to test market a three-litre milk jug was of general application.

The Tribunal found the decision was of specific application because it involved an ad hoc approach and idiosyncratic conditions under section 18 of Regulation 753, rather than a general prescription under section 8.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the motion and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario refusing an allocation of additional calculated base.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal considered the appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal, which introduced substantial new claims for relief not previously considered by the respondent.

The Tribunal ruled that the hearing would proceed only on the original claim for additional calculated base, as the respondent had not waived its right to first consider the new claims.

The Tribunal also deferred a jurisdictional challenge based on an arbitration clause in a settlement agreement, directing that it be resolved by a formal motion or arbitration proceedings.

The appellant, a candidate in a Dairy Farmers of Ontario board election, appealed the Returning Officer's decision to reject 10 ballots postmarked the day after the regulatory deadline.

The appellant argued the ballots might have been consigned to the post office on the deadline day but postmarked late due to local post office practices.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Returning Officer correctly applied Section 14(4) of Regulation 760 of the Milk Act, which requires the officer to be satisfied the ballots were mailed or consigned by the deadline, and that relying on the postmark provides an objective standard.

The appellant, a milk producer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to reject a bulk tank of milk due to a 'malty' odour.

The appellant argued that the bulk tank milk grader did not follow proper procedures and that DFO's policy of not allowing second opinions was unfair.

The Tribunal found that the time temperature recorder data corroborated the grader's assessment of a malfunctioning agitator, which led to improper cooling and the malty smell.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection, concluding that the DFO acted within its legislative discretion and that procedural errors did not negate the grader's valid determination.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled hearing due to a scheduling error and requested an adjournment by phone.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and requested costs of $3,000 for travel and witness expenses.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the appellant's error did not warrant dismissing the appeal.

However, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $3,000 in costs to the respondent as a condition of continuing the appeal.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the David Adams Municipal Drain.

The dispute originated from an unauthorized dam constructed by the appellant Grinnell, which caused upstream flooding and inadvertently created a heron rookery and enhanced fish habitat.

The appellants argued the costs of the drainage works, which included significant environmental mitigation measures, were not commensurate with the benefits, and challenged their specific assessments.

The Tribunal found that the benefits of the project extended to the regional community and upheld the overall project.

However, the Tribunal reduced the Campbell assessment due to an area calculation error, reduced Grinnell's special benefit assessment for culverts to account for a pre-existing crossing, and shifted the cost of the heron rookery mitigation from Grinnell to the Municipality.

The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock applied for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on the Stan Erb Drain due to changes in the watershed since the original 1968 report.

The Township of Perth East consented to the application.

The Tribunal found that the request met the requirements of Section 76 of the Drainage Act and granted permission to appoint an engineer.

The Director requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision that ordered the return of seized livestock medicines and personal items to Ken Allan, or compensation if they were destroyed.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction under the Livestock Medicines Act to award compensation, as its powers are limited to licensing decisions.

Furthermore, because the items were seized pursuant to a search warrant under the Provincial Offences Act, only a justice of the peace or provincial judge has the authority to order their return.

The Tribunal cancelled the previous orders.

The applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision ordering him to pay $7,080.70 in costs to the City of Kawartha Lakes.

The costs were awarded after the applicant failed to comply with a procedural order, prompting the City to bring a motion to dismiss his appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the original costs decision was fair, balanced, and contained no material error of law or fact.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) assessing an Excess Production Levy of $21,978.99 for exceeding its quota allotment.

The appellant argued the overproduction resulted from a clerical error by an inexperienced employee who relied on the wrong document to order chicks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the producer's failure to properly train and guide the employee did not constitute exceptional circumstances or force majeure warranting a waiver of the levy.

The Director requested a review of the Tribunal's prior decision.

Following unsuccessful attempts to develop an agreed statement of facts, the responding party withdrew from participating in the review hearing.

The Tribunal issued a new procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of affidavit evidence and written submissions for the written review hearing, while preserving the responding party's right to participate should he reconsider.

The Director requested a pre-hearing conference to argue a motion for summary judgment to revoke two orders made in a previous Tribunal decision regarding the return of seized livestock medicines and personal items.

The Tribunal held that it does not have the statutory authority or inherent jurisdiction to grant summary judgment, as its Rules of Procedure do not contain a provision analogous to Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Tribunal issued procedural directions for the review hearing to proceed in writing.