James Rickard

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to be 'grandfathered' as a counter-seasonal producer under a new daily quota system.

The DFO required producers to have been out of production for 30 consecutive days in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 dairy years to qualify.

The appellant had continuous production in 1996-97 only because he altered his milking patterns to comply with a DFO policy requiring him to stay in production to sell his quota before taking an educational sabbatical.

The Tribunal found that the interaction of these two policies created a unique circumstance and ordered the DFO to grandfather the appellant as a seasonal producer.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and the engineer's report regarding the Bourdeau Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the municipality should bear the costs of drain modifications and repairs, and disputed their individual assessments based on the extent to which their properties contributed to or benefited from the drain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to modify the drainage works but ordered adjustments to the assessment schedule, including a minimum assessment per property and specific reductions for certain landowners, noting that the engineer failed to differentiate run-off rates between residential and undeveloped lands.

Following the termination of its dealership agreement, the applicant dealer sought to return new parts to the respondent distributor under the Farm Implements Act.

The distributor rejected certain parts, arguing they were not clearly identified, were repackaged by the dealer, or were obsolete and not in the current parts record-keeping system.

The Tribunal interpreted sections 27(e) and 27(f) of the Act, establishing a four-part test for parts return.

The Tribunal held that parts in original packaging, custom parts with proof of purchase, and individually numbered parts from multi-packs are returnable.

The Tribunal directed the distributor to reconsider the rejected parts against these tests and to accept those that comply.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an amended engineer's report for a municipal drain, arguing that their existing private drainage facility should have been incorporated into the design and that they should receive an allowance under section 31 of the Drainage Act.

They also contested the cut-off benefit assessed to their properties.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was restricted to assessment matters and declined to treat it as a rehearing to alter the drain's design.

The Tribunal found that section 31 allowances were inapplicable because the private facility was not incorporated into the municipal works, and upheld the engineer's cut-off benefit assessments as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appellant farmer appealed a crop insurance claim adjustment by the respondent regarding 16 acres of corn damaged by frost and drought.

The respondent argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the dispute involved policy and contract terms.

The tribunal found it had jurisdiction because the dispute concerned the assessment of loss, not contract changes.

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to explain all harvesting options to the appellant and that the appellant should not be penalized for attempting to minimize his losses by harvesting the damaged crop as silage.

The tribunal recalculated the claim payout, awarding the appellant the difference between the guaranteed production and the salvage value.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's decision denying his crop insurance claim for a shortfall in soybean yield.

AGRICORP argued the loss was due to uninsured perils (weeds) and poor management, and that the appellant failed to report the damage prior to harvest.

The Tribunal found that an insured peril (drought) contributed to the reduced yield and accepted the appellant's evidence that he had reported a potential claim to an AGRICORP employee prior to harvest.

The appeal was granted, and AGRICORP was ordered to pay a reduced production claim of 457 bushels.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's adjustment of his 1998 crop insurance claim for corn.

AGRICORP had reduced the guaranteed production by 43 bushels per acre, attributing the loss to poor weed control rather than drought.

The Tribunal found that the reduced yield was entirely due to drought, an insured peril, as the dry weather caused both the poor crop and a late flush of weeds.

However, because the appellant failed to report the obvious crop damage in a timely manner, preventing AGRICORP from conducting a proper field inspection, the Tribunal imposed a 25% penalty on the calculated claim.

The appellant, an apple grower, appealed AGRICORP's calculation of his crop insurance claim under the 1998 Apple Production Plan.

The appellant's orchard suffered both frost and hail damage, and he argued that the claim settlement was improperly calculated and that the contract was an 'open contract' because the payout methodology for multiple perils was not clearly explained.

The Tribunal found that the contract was not an open contract and that its terms were outlined in the Plan.

The Tribunal concluded that AGRICORP calculated the claim correctly and consistently with the contract, applying the hail rider first and then calculating the frost damage after harvest, including a bumper crop settlement that increased the payout.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's calculation of their claims under the Crop Insurance Plan for Forage for the 1997 and 1998 crop years.

The appellants argued that the area-based yield simulation model did not accurately reflect their individual farm losses due to drought.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP had correctly applied the area-based plan and its computer simulation model in accordance with the coverage purchased, and that the appellants were treated no differently than other insureds.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants, hatching egg producers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission denying them just cause to terminate a growing contract with a breeder grower.

The appellants sought to terminate the contract because the grower's facility was too small for their increased quota and they did not want a split flock.

The grower committed to renovating his barn to accommodate the larger flock.

The Tribunal found that the renovations could likely be completed in time and that there was no just cause to terminate the contract, dismissing the appeal but directing the Commission to monitor the renovations.

The appellants appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing it deviated from the Engineer's Report.

The Township applied to amend the by-law to reflect the 'as-built' conditions.

During construction, changes were made to water retention terraces without the appellants' knowledge or the Engineer's prior approval, benefiting a neighbouring landowner while placing the burden of water retention entirely on the appellants.

The Tribunal found the drain functioned satisfactorily and declined to order reconstruction.

However, the Tribunal ordered monetary adjustments to compensate the appellants for the unfair process and the neighbouring landowner's unearned benefits, and approved the addendum to the Engineer's Report.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision allowing two high plate loop count (PLC) test results to stand, which resulted in penalties.

The appellant argued the samples were mishandled by the milk grader and did not reflect the farm's milk quality.

The Tribunal found no evidence of improper sampling or testing procedures, noting the appellant's samples were the only ones on the load with high counts.

The Tribunal concluded that issues with the farm's washing system and equipment provided opportunities for bacterial contamination, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the decision of AGRICORP concerning the adjustment of loss under the Crop Insurance Plan for Apples following hail damage to his orchard.

The appellant argued that the plan was unfair, complex, and provided inadequate protection, noting that his payout was only 51% of the damage.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP had calculated the claim settlement in accordance with the policy purchased by the appellant.

As the Tribunal only has authority to adjust the amount of settlement and the calculation was correct under the contract, the appeal was dismissed, though the Tribunal recommended AGRICORP review and improve the plan.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario finding that he had violated marketing regulations by producing and marketing 139,010 kilograms of unreported chicken.

The Board had assessed license fees and levies and cancelled all of his basic production quota.

The Tribunal found clear evidence that the appellant participated in a scheme to shave weights and market unreported chicken.

However, noting this was a first offence, the Tribunal found the penalty too severe and reduced it to a cancellation of 50% of the appellant's basic quota units, while upholding the assessment of $61,391.87 in fees and levies.

The appellant, a tobacco producer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying his request to institute a policy of pooling the proceeds of sale of tobacco by grade.

The appellant argued that the current system, where prices fluctuate based on the day of sale, is inequitable.

The Board maintained that price pooling would remove incentives for quality production and should not be implemented without consensus from the Tobacco Industry Advisory Committee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that a significant number of producers supported the proposed change to the marketing system.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed the pricing orders set by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board.

During the hearing, the Board introduced new evidence regarding export credits.

The appellant requested an adjournment to respond to this new information.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, ending the hearing and directing the parties to conduct a new pricing meeting to consider the matter again, while keeping the previous pricing order in effect.

The appellant processors' committee appealed a pricing order by the respondent marketing board that raised or maintained the live price of turkeys.

The appellant argued that high storage stocks, reduced processor margins, and changes in retail purchasing practices necessitated a price reduction.

The respondent argued that the price increase was justified by higher feed costs and positive market indicators.

The Tribunal found that while market indicators were beginning to show positive signs, they were not sufficient to support a price increase given the processors' reduced margins.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, ordering a 2.0 cent reduction in the price of all categories of turkey for a specified period.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding the methodology used to determine the price of Class 4(a) milk under the P6 Agreement.

The appellant argued that the new pricing system failed to achieve revenue neutrality, resulting in increased costs for butter and powder manufacturers.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had followed the agreed-upon P6 methodology, even though it resulted in a cost increase.

The Tribunal declined to make a decision on the dispute, concluding that the proper forum for resolving the issue was the governing body of the P6 Agreement, as Ontario could not act unilaterally.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for relief from a 15% transfer assessment on quota sales.

The appellant had been forced to sell his quota to satisfy bank loans called due to his marital breakdown.

The Tribunal found that while the circumstances warranted compassion, the request to return the transfer assessment and grant an additional quota allocation should be denied.

However, the Tribunal directed the DFO to purchase the appellant's over quota milk produced during the 1996/97 dairy year at full price, up to a maximum of 11,500 kg, as a form of assistance.

The appellant, a counter-seasonal dairy producer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for an exemption from the continuous production requirement for over-quota levy refunds.

The Tribunal found that the policy change unfairly excluded the appellant, who had been a counter-seasonal producer prior to the policy's implementation.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, ordering the respondent to pay the over-quota levy refunds for the 1994/95, 1995/96, and 1996/97 dairy years.