Peter Koroneos

The appellant, a mid-sized dairy processor, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to invoice it retroactively at the highest class price for milk deliveries after multiple audits found its production records unreliable and unverifiable.

The appellant argued that the retroactive invoice constituted an unauthorized penalty under the Milk Act and that DFO lacked authority to impose it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 24 of DFO General Regulation 10/17 authorizes DFO to charge the highest class price when a processor fails to provide verifiable milk utilization declarations.

The Tribunal also held that the surcharge was not a penalty but a mechanism to ensure fair compensation to dairy farmers.

Finally, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a prior settlement agreement between the parties.

The appellant appealed his assessment for Special Benefit under the Drainage Act regarding the Fleming Drain Extension.

The engineer's report assessed the appellant's property $10,095 for special benefit related to the partial filling of a ravine to control erosion.

The appellant argued he should be assessed nothing and that the neighbouring property should bear the cost.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's property did receive a special benefit from the stabilization of the ravine bank, but that the assessment was disproportionate.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant's special benefit assessment be reduced by 50%, with the balance assessed as Outlet and Injuring Liability to upstream lands and roads.

The appellant brought a motion to amend a previous Tribunal order requiring it to provide a $3.3 million letter of credit to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) as security during an appeal.

The appellant requested that the Tribunal hold the security instead of DFO and that DFO be prevented from realizing the security until 90 days after the Tribunal's order becomes final.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, declining to act as an escrow agent to avoid becoming a party to future litigation.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to order the security held past the date the decision becomes final under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, as it would be functus officio.

The appellants sought to appeal a drainage assessment to the Tribunal under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

However, they had not filed an appeal with the court of revision within the required timelines.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because section 54 requires the appellant to have been a party to an appeal before the court of revision.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment for a municipal drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the assessment was unfair, the allowance for damages was insufficient, and the municipality should bear the costs due to past neglect.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the engineer who prepared the report, explaining the modified Todgham method used for the assessment.

The Tribunal found the assessment was fair, consistently applied, and in accordance with accepted drainage engineering practices.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, a dairy farm and its owner, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to cancel their milk operating licence.

The cancellation followed a third shut-off from the milk market within a 24-month period due to elevated somatic cell counts and abnormal freezing point estimates.

The appellants argued the quality issues were caused by defective robotic milking equipment and poor technical support.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's decision, finding that the appellants had received numerous warnings and failed to take timely corrective action, such as returning to a pipeline milking system, thereby posing an unacceptable risk to the safety and integrity of the milk marketing system.

The Tribunal convened a pre-hearing conference to address allegations that counsel breached a prior confidentiality order regarding restricted access motions.

The Tribunal found no intentional disclosures of confidential material by either party.

To ensure clarity moving forward, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering that all materials related to the restricted access request, including third-party materials, remain confidential and sealed.

The Tribunal also established a formal motion process for third parties seeking participant or intervenor status on the restricted access motion.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) provide the Tribunal with eleven categories of documents pursuant to subsection 16(7) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal interpreted subsection 16(7) as requiring the regulatory decision-maker to forward the essential elements of the decision-making record, not to provide broad documentary discovery.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had already discharged its statutory obligation by providing the relevant audit reports, correspondence, and board minutes that informed its decision.

The motion was dismissed as an improper attempt at broad documentary discovery.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to define the scope of a statutory stay arising from an appeal by Skotidakis Goat Farm against a DFO decision imposing retroactive assessments and other penalties.

The Tribunal held that the statutory stay did not suspend DFO's regulatory authority to conduct ongoing inspections and audits outside the scope of the appealed decision.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal also ordered the Appellants to preserve original production records and post financial security of approximately $3.3 million (representing two months of average milk purchases) pending the final disposition of the appeal.