Marthanne Robson

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the Pilkington Drain, the respondent Municipality sought full indemnity costs of $23,594.21, arguing the appeal was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found the appellants' conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.

The Tribunal declined to make a direct costs award against the appellants, instead ordering that the Municipality's costs form part of the cost of the drainage works to be assessed proportionately among all property owners on the drain, in accordance with standard practice under the Drainage Act.

The Appellants appealed a municipal drainage report (the Spriet Report) under s. 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have it set aside and replaced with their own private drainage works.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants' private works were undertaken without authorization and did not provide a benefit commensurate with the estimated costs to the watershed.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the municipality's drainage engineer over the Appellants' civil engineer, concluding that the Spriet Report provided a sufficient outlet and met design standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the Spriet Report was adopted.

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 Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the OFA's application against the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 723/93, as amended.

Finding that the OFA met all the necessary requirements, including those related to membership, financial contributions to local branches, and the provision of education and advocacy, the Tribunal granted the application and re-accredited the OFA for a three-year period.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the prescribed criteria in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the NFU-O met all the criteria, including membership numbers, local branch requirements, and financial reporting, the Tribunal granted the re-accreditation for a three-year period.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the CFFO met all the necessary requirements, including corporate structure, membership numbers, local branch contributions, and the provision of agricultural education and advocacy, the Tribunal granted the application.

The CFFO was re-accredited for a three-year period commencing December 6, 2015.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy operation but only acquired a fraction of the associated land.

They moved the purchased herd to their home farm under a temporary shared facilities agreement, intending to renovate the purchased farm.

They later abandoned renovation plans and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy to permanently merge the quotas at their home farm.

The DFO denied the exemption and ordered the cows returned to the purchased farm, imposing a 20% quota reduction penalty if they failed to comply.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's denial of the exemption, finding the appellants' desire for efficiency did not justify circumventing quota transfer policies.

However, the Tribunal found the 20% penalty disproportionate and reduced it to 10%.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy farm operation and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy restricting the transfer and merger of milk quota.

They wished to permanently transfer the newly acquired quota to their home farm without renovating the purchased facilities or milking there for the required five years.

The Tribunal found the DFO's quota transfer restrictions valid and authorized by the Milk Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an exemption, finding the appellants' reasons did not justify circumventing the policy.

However, the Tribunal reduced the conditional penalty for failing to return the cows to the purchased farm from a 20% quota reduction to a 10% reduction.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Producers (AOCP) brought a motion for limited party (intervenor) status in an appeal by a dairy producer against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO).

The AOCP argued it had an interest in the constitutional and Competition Act issues raised by the appellant regarding supply management policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the AOCP failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal, which concerned milk quota transfer policies.

The Tribunal also noted that granting status shortly before the scheduled hearing would cause prejudice and delay.

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 appellants, who immigrated from Holland to purchase a dairy farm in Ontario, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request to transfer an additional 25 kg of milk quota from the farm's seller.

The appellants argued their situation was unique and extraordinary because they had already sold their Dutch farm and committed to the purchase before realizing the full quota could not be transferred under DFO policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants proceeded with the purchase with full knowledge of the reduced quota and that their circumstances were neither exceptional nor outside their control.

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 appellants appealed their assessment for the Broken Second Municipal Drain, arguing that their property drained into a different watershed and that they were being assessed twice for the same land.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence, based on field observations, that the land drained into the new municipal drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Revision's minor reductions to the appellants' assessment, and ordered a notation on the overlapping drain's file to prevent future double assessment.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying his request to fix and allot basic quota to a new premises separate from his existing registered premises.

The appellant sought an exemption from the minimum 14,000 unit quota requirement per premises due to the financial costs of expanding his existing barn, which was located next to environmentally sensitive land.

The Tribunal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant's financial considerations and desire to expand did not constitute 'special circumstances' such as a barn fire or catastrophic illness that would warrant an exemption from the quota policy.

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

The Tribunal reviewed the statutory criteria, including the organization's role in promoting francophone awareness of agriculture, providing education, and maintaining ties with other agricultural organizations.

Finding that the UCFO met all conditions and criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and renewed the special funding eligibility for a three-year period.

The appellant, a retired veterinarian, appealed the revocation of his Class 1 Licence to sell livestock medicines and the seizure of his medicines.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had voluntarily resigned from the licensing system prior to the provisional suspension and revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also found that the Ministry committed procedural errors by failing to issue a warning letter and failing to provide an opportunity for compliance before the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the return of the seized medicines and personal items, and directed that the voluntary resignation not be considered negatively in any future licence application.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the Thorpe-Ellis Municipal Drain, arguing that his outlet assessment was too high because a portion of his land drained into a different drain.

The Tribunal found a minor discrepancy of 3.4 acres in the calculated drainage area.

To ensure the total assessed area did not exceed the appellant's total land ownership, the Tribunal ordered a $130.00 reduction in the appellant's assessment, adding the amount to the municipality's road assessment.

The Tribunal also ordered revisions to the Assessment Schedule and the rescission of the provisional by-law until the schedule was updated.

The appellant, an unincorporated association of dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) not to rescind its November 2006 Quota Policy on Transfer Assessments.

The appellant argued the policy was flawed and requested rescission along with over $15 million in compensation for its members.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant individual compensation as it was not requested before the DFO.

On the merits, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the Ontario dairy industry was overcapitalized and that the policy successfully stabilized quota values.

The Tribunal concluded the positive impacts of the policy on the industry outweighed the negative impacts on the appellant's members, and dismissed the appeal.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal considered motions to lift, limit, or define the scope of a statutory stay of a decision by the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission regarding the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board.

The Commission's decision significantly changed the mandate of Ontario Pork from single desk marketing to a more open market.

The Tribunal applied the RJR MacDonald test, adapted for a statutory stay, and found no irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay remained in place.

The Tribunal declined to lift the stay but defined its scope, allowing certain preparatory work and pilot projects to continue while staying the implementation of the open market structure pending the appeal.