Nicholas Richter

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

The Tribunal found that the NFU-O did not have standing to apply because it did not represent farmers in the province, but rather acted as a passive legal conduit for the federally incorporated National Farmers Union (NFU) to access stable funding.

The Tribunal also found that, even if the NFU-O had standing, it failed to meet the prescribed criteria for accreditation.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs appeared in support of the application.

Due to the urgent need to finalize annual farming business registration forms, the Tribunal released its decision without reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the NFU-O's application for accreditation, with written reasons to follow.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization.

In this fourth interim order, the Tribunal identified four areas of concern regarding whether the NFU-O meets the statutory requirements, including whether it represents farmers in Ontario, its actual purpose, its provision of advice to government, and its membership fees.

The Tribunal exercised its statutory powers to order the NFU-O to produce various corporate, financial, and membership documents to assist in determining these issues, and scheduled a further hearing.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

Following amendments to the relevant regulation, the NFU-O sought to withdraw its application and immediately file a fresh one.

The Tribunal raised concerns that this might constitute an abuse of process and issued a Second Interim Order seeking submissions.

In this Third Interim Order, the Tribunal declined the NFU-O's conditional requests regarding the withdrawal and directed the NFU-O to either unconditionally withdraw its letters or provide further submissions on the abuse of process issue.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

Following amendments to the accreditation criteria in the Regulation, which applied retroactively to the NFU-O's application, the NFU-O sought to withdraw its existing application and immediately commence a fresh one.

The Tribunal raised concerns that this procedure might constitute an abuse of process, given the substantial resources already expended and the identical nature of the applications under the amended criteria.

The Tribunal issued an interim order directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the withdrawal and fresh application would be an abuse of process and what orders would be appropriate.

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

The Tribunal found that the OFA failed to meet several mandatory criteria for accreditation under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93, primarily because persons making payments to the OFA under section 21 of the Act could not be considered 'members' without an explicit membership agreement.

As the Tribunal has no discretion to grant accreditation if any criterion is not met, the application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal evaluated whether the CFFO met the criteria set out in section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal found that while the CFFO met several criteria, it failed to meet others, primarily due to its inability to treat persons making a payment under section 21 of the Act as members without an explicit membership agreement.

As the Tribunal has no discretion to accredit an organization that does not meet all legislative requirements, the application was dismissed.

The applicant farm organization applied for accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted the applicant used the term 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria, raising an issue of statutory interpretation regarding the presumption of consistent expression.

The Tribunal issued an interim order allowing the applicant and the Minister to make written submissions on this interpretation issue.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further documentation regarding a qualification in its auditor's report to ensure compliance with the CICA Handbook.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant used the word 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal issued an interim order requesting written submissions from the applicant and the Minister on whether the presumption of consistent expression applies to the interpretation of the word 'member' in the Regulation.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant used the word 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal issued an interim order directing the applicant and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to provide written submissions on whether the presumption of consistent expression applies to the interpretation of the word 'member' in the Regulation.

The appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The Board denied the application on the basis that the appellant's son, who had a history of regulatory contraventions, was the de facto producer standing behind the application.

The Tribunal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board was entitled to treat the appellant and her son as one unit for the purpose of assessing the application, and that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory plan to ensure her son would not be involved in the tobacco production.

The appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The appellant sought an expedited decision so she could plant tobacco in time for the 2012 crop year.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, issuing its decision without reasons to accommodate the planting schedule, with full written reasons to follow.

Andrew Peller Limited appealed a decision by the Grape Growers of Ontario to appoint a third-party inspector to resolve a dispute over the quality of grapes supplied by a producer.

The appellant argued that the referral was not timely and that the grapes had already been destroyed, making an inspection impossible.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicable 2010 Regulations did not impose a time limit for referring a dispute to an inspector, and that the inspector's role was to adjudicate the dispute, which could be done even if the grapes were no longer available for physical inspection.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed the Director's decision to grant Esskay Dairy Ltd. a permit to construct a dairy plant for manufacturing lassi.

The appellant argued the Director failed to properly consider the negative impact on existing plants under section 14(3)(a) of the Milk Act, given the limited industrial milk supply.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed plant was necessary and desirable as it would manufacture a unique product, create local jobs, and potentially increase the overall demand for milk, thereby advancing the legislative purpose of stimulating milk production in Ontario.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Weber-Brubacher Municipal Drain, seeking compensation for the removal of two cedar trees, increased allowances under sections 29 and 30 of the Drainage Act, and a reduction in their assessment.

The Tribunal found that the cedar trees constituted an obstruction to the drainage works under section 80 of the Act and therefore the appellants were not entitled to compensation for their removal.

The Tribunal also denied the request for increased allowances, noting that the right-of-way was established and paid for in 1973, and the Act does not provide compensation for construction inconvenience.

The Tribunal found the assessments to be fair and reasonable, and dismissed the appeals.