Judy Dirksen

The applicant applied for an order waiving the requirement to obtain a farming business registration number and make a payment to an accredited farm organization based on his religious convictions.

He argued that his beliefs in 'Sphere Sovereignty' and 'Impartiality' prevented him from supporting organizations that advocate for supply management and risk management programs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's convictions were genuinely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of his objection.

The application for a religious exemption was granted.

The appellant appealed four decisions of AgriCorp regarding his crop insurance for his vineyard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2022 Grape Vine Rider claim, finding that vines dying after the coverage period ended were not eligible.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2023 Grape Coverage, finding the appellant could not challenge the policy terms after accepting them.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2023 Grape Production claim, finding the loss was caused by powdery mildew (an excluded peril) rather than excessive rainfall.

Finally, the Tribunal upheld AgriCorp's cancellation of the 2024 policy because the appellant breached the contract by denying AgriCorp access to his property.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by St. Brigid's Dairy Ltd. regarding a request for 2023 incentive days and changes to DFO policies.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal regarding the 2023 incentive days, finding it was filed out of time, the appellant had previously abandoned an identical appeal, and the claim for financial compensation was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims without a hearing because the appellant failed to first apply to the DFO board for a hearing as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a reconsideration decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to replace their assigned milk transporter.

The dispute arose after an altercation between the appellant and a bulk tank milk grader, which led to rejected milk pickups and the appellant signing an undertaking.

Although the specific grader was permanently removed from the appellants' route prior to the hearing, the appellants continued to seek a new transporter.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the transporter should be replaced, noting the DFO's responsibility to minimize transportation costs province-wide.

The appellant appealed the election of a delegate to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, arguing she was not an eligible 'producer' under Ontario Regulation 403/10.

The delegate had sold her primary hog operation but continued to raise a small number of hogs for farmgate sales.

The Tribunal found that the delegate met the regulatory definition of a producer at the time of the election, as she owned and produced hogs on a property in the relevant zone.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants, licensed milk producers, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for relief following an altercation with a milk transport driver.

The DFO brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellants' harassment complaint against the driver and transport company, as well as their claim for monetary compensation for dumped milk.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the appellants' requests to permanently remove the driver from their route and to replace the transport company, finding an insufficient evidentiary record to determine if those issues were moot or trivial.

The motion was granted in part, with two issues proceeding to a full hearing.

The applicant applied for a religious exemption from registration and payment under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal attempted to schedule a pre-hearing conference, but the applicant failed to respond to communications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal under Rule 33.01, seeking written submissions.

The applicant did not provide submissions or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion without a hearing.

The appellant, representing licensed chicken processors, appealed a reconsideration decision of the respondent local board regarding the collection of data for the Cost of Production Formula used to set minimum live chicken prices.

The appellant requested that the respondent collect specific data on third-party labour costs, feed cost discounts, and government payments in its Operating Costs Survey, which the respondent refused.

The Tribunal held a bifurcated hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the respondent's decision was discretionary and not mandated by legislation, and because the pricing of chicken is determined by a negotiating agency, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from farm registration and payment under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The applicant stated he did not have religious convictions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion without a hearing, finding that a lack of religious convictions is not a religious conviction or belief, and therefore no remedy was available under the Act.

Following a decision in favour of the respondents regarding normal farm practices, the respondents sought costs against the applicants.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

This conduct included commencing a frivolous application, raising unsubstantiated issues, attempting to malign the respondents, serving excessive and irrelevant documents, bringing unreasonable motions, and making continued allegations of bias.

The Board awarded costs of $40,000 to the respondents.

The appellants challenged an administrative decision finding that they illegally transported milk between two separately licensed dairy facilities operating on the same property and imposing $10,000 in penalties.

The Tribunal held a de novo hearing and applied the civil standard of proof, requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence because of the serious licensing consequences.

It found the respondent's case was entirely circumstantial and did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that milk had been moved contrary to the regulation.

The tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation for unusual production patterns and found the trailer-mounted tank evidence inconsistent with clandestine milk transfer.

The decision and penalties were set aside, and any deducted penalties were ordered credited back.

The applicants, who own a cottage adjacent to the respondents' cow-calf farm, brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from flies, odour, and dust caused by the respondents' manure storage and application practices.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances.

Finding that the applicants failed to show substantial interference that would not be tolerated by an ordinary occupier in a rural agricultural area, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The appellant, an inactive egg grading station and quota holder, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) refusing to enact a 'directed marketing' policy that would require producers to market eggs to it.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had standing as an aggrieved person, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order EFO to exercise its discretionary delegated powers to create such a policy.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was vexatious and brought in bad faith, as it was pursued concurrently with civil litigation raising similar issues and alongside three other withdrawn appeals.

The appeal was dismissed without a hearing, and costs of $8,842.25 were awarded to the respondent.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties made oral submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the appeal should be dismissed before a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow, and set a schedule for written submissions on costs.