John Lammers

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, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario not to cancel positive inhibitor test results and the associated penalties and load liability costs.

A milk sample from their farm tested positive for penicillin, resulting in the contamination and disposal of an entire truckload of milk.

The appellants argued the contamination must have occurred off-farm, as they were not treating cows with penicillin.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in sample handling or testing, noting the presence of antibiotics on the farm, and emphasizing the producers' failure to keep permanent treatment records.

The Tribunal held that responsibility for the milk remains with the producer.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to allocate 600,000 kilograms of chicken supply to a new entrant, Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc., for Quota Period A-21.

The appellant argued the allocation was unfair and not in the spirit of a new supply agreement taking effect in the subsequent quota period.

The Tribunal found no substantial change in the marketplace to justify an increase from the 500,000 kilograms allocated in the previous period and directed that the supply be fixed at 500,000 kilograms.

The appellant appealed a decision allowing a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample from its farm to stand.

The appellant argued that the sample collection and handling by the bulk tank milk grader was improper, suggesting the grader's son may have contaminated or switched the sample.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the appellant's theory and concluded there was no doubt the milk in the bulk tank contained inhibitors.

The appeal was denied, and the penalties and costs assessed were upheld.

The appellant, Jarvis Chick Sales Inc., appealed the amount of penalties imposed by the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission for late payments.

At the commencement of the hearing, the appellant's representative advised the Tribunal that the parties had reached a negotiated settlement.

Consequently, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and commended the parties for resolving the issue.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Egg Producers' Marketing Board denying their request for an exemption from Quota Policy #2.

The appellants sought to sell 90% of their pullet quota calculated on the past two years' utilization rather than the required five years' utilization, citing the poor condition of their recently purchased barn and the cost of refurbishing.

The Tribunal found no compelling reasons to make an exception to the policy, noting the new policy provided a better opportunity than the one existing when the appellants purchased the premises.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, Robert Meersseman, appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission denying his request for a license to process vegetables in 1997.

The appellant had applied for a personal license after his company, Boneta Foods, was denied a license.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and Boneta Foods were indistinguishable for the purposes of obtaining a license, and that the personal application was an attempt to bypass the denial of the corporate license.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant processor association appealed a decision by the respondent marketing board to allocate an additional one million kilograms of chicken to a specific processor for a quota period, bypassing the standard special request panel process.

The appellant argued this extra allocation would negatively impact the market and set a dangerous precedent.

The Tribunal found that while the board had the authority to grant the exemption and the processor demonstrated a legitimate need for additional product, the full one million kilogram allocation raised concerns about market effects.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the additional allotment to 600,000 kilograms.

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 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.