Moira Connell

The appellants appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample taken from their farm.

The sample tested positive for Penicillin G, resulting in a penalty of $2,601.12.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative of their milk and pointed to inconsistencies in testing for other drugs.

The Tribunal found that sample integrity was maintained, the official test confirmed the presence of penicillin, and the appellants had a cow being treated with penicillin at the time.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, holding that producers must accept responsibility for the quality of milk produced on their farm.

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 appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the engineer's report and assessments for the Stefanik Drain.

The appellants argued that they were riparian owners on a natural watercourse and therefore should not be assessed for outlet liability.

The Tribunal conducted a site view and concluded that the channel in question was not a natural watercourse with riparian rights, but rather a swale used as an outlet for tile drainage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drain provided a legal outlet for the upper properties, justifying an outlet assessment.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the assessment ratio, determining that the main purpose of the work was to reclaim land on the lower property, and modified the schedule of assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a new tile drain to supplement the capacity of the existing Donald Carroll Drain.

The proposed work was requested by one landowner to improve drainage on his property.

The appellants argued that the existing drainage was adequate and that the estimated cost of the work exceeded the expected benefits.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the landowners were satisfied with the existing drainage and that there was no evidence of crop loss or significant land damage on the property of the person requesting the improvement.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefits of the proposed work were not commensurate with its estimated cost and granted the appeals, ordering that the work not proceed.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the assessments in the July 1998 engineer's report for the proposed Hayter Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the assessments were unfair, as the drain primarily benefited the agricultural property of the petitioning landowner.

The Tribunal found that the engineer's method of calculating the assessments did not comply with the Drainage Act or common law principles regarding surface water and cut-off benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to re-work the assessments in accordance with the principles set out in its decision, and amended the report's provisions regarding maintenance.

The appellant, a chicken processor, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an additional chicken quota allocation.

The appellant argued that the Special Request Panel's decision was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Panel Chair had previously authored a report used against the appellant in a prior proceeding.

The Tribunal found that while a reasonable person might have an apprehension of bias, the appellant waived its right to object by failing to raise the issue at the first opportunity during the Panel meeting.

The Tribunal declined to review the Panel's decision on the basis of bias.

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 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 appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that proposed improvements to the Hoy Drain were unnecessary and should be abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the existing drain, designed in 1962, no longer provided adequate drainage for the neighbouring property, which had experienced ongoing water ponding despite the installation of private tiles.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that upgrading the outlet was a necessary first step to resolve the drainage issues.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in costs because they failed to provide credible evidence to support their assertions and necessitated an unnecessary hearing.

The appellant, a registered chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) finding that it had produced and marketed 7,567 kilograms of chicken without quota, failed to report chicks placed, and failed to pay license fees.

The CFO had imposed a penalty reducing the appellant's future crop quota by five times the amount of the unreported chicken and assessed levies of $933.37.

The Tribunal heard conflicting evidence regarding whether the appellant had shipped illegal chicken to an abattoir.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the abattoir's bookkeeper and the redirected payment cheques to be credible, concluding that the appellant did ship the unreported chicken.

Finding no mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the CFO's findings and the five-fold penalty, dismissing the appeal.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision not to cancel a milk sample test result that led to a penalty for having a freezing point of -0.522 degrees Hortvet, indicating excess water.

The appellants argued there was no financial incentive to add water and suspected a problem with the sampling dipper.

The Tribunal found no evidence of errors in the sampling or testing procedures and upheld the Director's decision to let the test result stand, while recommending that producers be better informed about new freezing point testing procedures.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board which reduced their basic production quota by 50% for selling tobacco outside the Board's auction exchange.

The appellants admitted to the illegal sales but sought leniency on compassionate grounds due to severe family health and financial stress.

The Tribunal found that while the breach was a serious offense requiring a significant deterrent, the circumstances warranted compassion.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, reducing the penalty to a 40% cancellation of the appellants' basic quota to allow them a better opportunity to remain viable tobacco producers.

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 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 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 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 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, 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.