Karen Ratcliffe

The appellants, tobacco farmers facing criminal charges for illegal tobacco sales, applied to the marketing board for an extension of time to apply for spring rental of their marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of their quota.

The board denied the requests, citing the pending charges and the inability to determine if the appellants were in good standing.

The Tribunal found that the board's decision was unfair, as other producers facing similar charges were allowed to continue producing and marketing tobacco.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and allowed the appellants to rent out the standard 30% of their quota, but denied the request to rent out 100%, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the exemption.

The appellant, a tobacco producer facing unresolved criminal charges for alleged unlawful sale of tobacco, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from the General Regulation 1999-2000.

The appellant sought an extension of the deadline to apply for spring rental of his marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of his quota rather than the standard 30% limit.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted unfairly by treating the appellant differently from other producers facing similar charges who were allowed to continue producing.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the 30% spring rental but denied the request to rent out 100% of the quota, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the latter exemption.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Johnston Drain, seeking a modification to divert the upper portion of the watershed to the north, increased allowances for crop damage, and changes to the assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed northern diversion offered no cost or design advantage over the engineer's proposed route.

The Tribunal also upheld the crop damage allowance of $600 per acre and the assessments as fair and reasonable, though it ordered the engineer to amend the report to include detailed assessment calculations.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the repair and improvement of a municipal drain.

They sought compensation for past drain repairs, increased crop damage allowances, and changes to the cost assessments.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to address the 1982 repair issues and upheld the engineer's cost assessments as fair.

However, the Tribunal increased the crop damage allowance to $600 per acre, finding the engineer's use of input costs rather than crop value to be unusual.

The Tribunal also ordered the municipality to bear the hearing costs because it had reneged on a prior settlement agreement that could have avoided the hearing.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent applied to the Tribunal for a modification to a by-law concerning the repair and improvement of a drain and culvert.

After the original report was adopted, the property was severed, making the planned culvert location unsuitable for agricultural access.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to terms including notice to landowners and a 14-day appeal period.

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.

Farm Fresh Poultry Co-operative Inc. appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying its request for an increased base allocation of live chicken supply and a guaranteed growth process to reach two million kilograms.

Farm Fresh argued it should be treated as a new entrant under Quota Policy 129-1996.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that Farm Fresh was not a new entrant because it had acquired an existing plant's supply, and that the CFO acted fairly in applying its new supply setting agreement.

The Tribunal concluded that economic viability and plant capacity were not valid criteria for allocation.

Subsequently, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs varied the Tribunal's decision, awarding Farm Fresh an additional allocation of 105,000 kilograms for the domestic market commencing in period A-24, but denied the request for an accelerated growth pattern.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and assessments regarding the Foster Drain 1997 and Addendum No. 1 under the Drainage Act.

They argued that their benefit assessments were too high and that an outlet pipe on Joseph Stephenson's property was unnecessary.

The Tribunal found that the division of benefit and outlet was weighted too heavily in benefit for the appellants, reducing Joseph Stephenson's benefit assessment from $9,600 to $7,600 and Jim and Mary Stephenson's from $3,000 to $2,000.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the outlet pipe, confirming its construction was in accordance with accepted practices.

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, 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, 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 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 appellants, Boneta Foods and Robert Meersseman, appealed decisions denying them a processor licence and a producer licence for the 1997 crop year.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of the processor licence to Boneta Foods, finding a history of non-compliance with payment terms and poor financial management.

However, the Tribunal granted Mr. Meersseman a producer licence on the condition that he obtain a contract with a licensed processor, noting that late applications had been accommodated in the past.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision allowing a positive inhibitor test result for sulphamethazine (SMZ) in their milk to stand.

They argued the sample may have been contaminated after leaving their farm or improperly handled by the bulk tank milk grader.

The Tribunal found no evidence of tampering or improper handling, noting that the sample vial's security was intact and no other samples on the route tested positive.

As there was no evidence that the SMZ entered the milk from a source other than the farm, the Tribunal denied the appeal and upheld the test result.

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 appellants, four independent dairies in Northern Ontario, appealed a decision by the Farm Products Marketing Commission to modify its Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy.

The policy changes merged distribution areas and allowed fluid milk products processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to consult adequately on the substance of the changes and requested the Tribunal direct the Commission to reopen the issue and conduct hearings in Northern Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission had conducted adequate consultation with the industry starting in 1993 and that the industry should not have been surprised by the policy change.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend the Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy, which eliminated distribution areas in Northern Ontario and allowed fluid milk processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.

The appellants requested a delay in implementation and public hearings, and one appellant requested an exemption to source milk from Southern Ontario earlier than scheduled.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the Commission had adequately consulted the industry, had considered the anticipated impact, and had provided adequate notification of the phased implementation.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to address the exemption request as it had not been considered by the Commission.

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.

The appellant, an apple grower, appealed a decision of the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission denying his request for a list of the names and addresses of all registered apple growers.

The appellant sought the list to facilitate open communication among growers.

The Commission refused to release the list but offered to conduct a supervised mailing on the appellant's behalf.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant could achieve his communication goals within the Commission's current policies and that the Commission's policy of protecting grower information was reasonable.