Ralph Huckle

The appellant appealed decisions of the marketing board rejecting its proposal to market a limited number of market weight hogs (up to 5% of its total sales of 'off sort' hogs).

The appellant argued the exemption would allow it to provide better service to producers without harming the marketing board's market power.

The marketing board argued that allowing competitors in its core market would erode its single desk selling authority and market power.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the marketing board's market power would be diminished by allowing competitors in the market weight hog category, and that preserving the single desk selling function was in the best interests of Ontario pork producers.

The appellant, a hog assembler, appealed decisions of the respondent marketing board refusing to amend its policies regarding the marketing of 'lightweight' or 'off sort' hogs.

The appellant sought exemptions to allow it to market hogs in certain weight ranges and 'chance hogs' outside the respondent's single-desk system, arguing it needed these hogs to fill truckloads efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding weight categories and chance hogs, finding that altering the single-desk status would erode the respondent's marketing power and be contrary to the marketing plan.

The Tribunal remitted a new 5% exemption proposal back to the respondent for consideration.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant's request to retain a $0.25 per hog administration fee from service charges collected for the respondent on off-sort hogs.

The Director of Regulatory Compliance brought a motion to lift a statutory stay that took effect when the respondent appealed a decision shutting him off from the milk market for unsanitary practices.

The Tribunal applied the RJR MacDonald test and found that the risk to public health from unsanitary milk production outweighed the financial harm to the respondent.

The motion was granted and the stay was lifted pending the appeal hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP to deny them crop insurance coverage for five years and to require the repayment of previously settled claims due to alleged misrepresentation of crop yields.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal adopted the minutes of settlement, which rescinded the five-year ban and the repayment requirement, but rendered the appellants ineligible for crop insurance for the 2003 crop year.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report on the Eden Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns regarding the design of Drain A, including the outlet structure, the necessity of deepening the existing ditch, and the adequacy of compensation for land taken.

They also questioned the necessity of constructing Drain B as a petition drain rather than a mutual agreement drain, and the adequacy and allocation of compensation for an existing ditch incorporated into Drain B. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the engineer's designs accommodated landowner requests where possible, the allowances provided were reasonable and correctly allocated, and Drain B had to be constructed as a petition drain because not all landowners agreed to a mutual agreement drain.

The appellant hatchery appealed decisions of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission (OBHECC) assessing fines for obstructing an inspector, failing to report bird sales, and failing to produce requested information.

The appellant also requested the Tribunal to order OBHECC to issue Hatching Egg Market Share for special dual purpose birds.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding market share for lack of jurisdiction, as the appellant had not first applied to OBHECC.

After hearing evidence, the Tribunal upheld all fines, finding that the appellant knowingly failed to fulfill its obligations under the regulated marketing scheme.

Sunnybrook Farms appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding Sunnybrook's entitlement to a periodic allocation base of 100,000 kilograms of chicken for slaughter.

Sunnybrook argued it had never relinquished its 100,000 kg base allocation established under the 1996 system, while the CFO contended the request was untimely under the 1998 system.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that the definition of supply in the 1996 policy was ambiguous and that Sunnybrook, as a non-member of processor organizations, relied on the CFO to represent its interests.

The Tribunal ordered the CFO to hold a hearing into Sunnybrook's entitlement.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to cancel his basic production quota and his 2001 marketing quota after he admitted to illegally selling tobacco.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the basic production quota but varied the penalty regarding the 2001 crop, allowing it to be marketed subject to a fine equivalent to 20% of the proceeds.

The Tribunal found that the timing of the Board's hearing created an inequity for the appellant and his sharegrowers, who had already incurred harvest costs.

The appellant, a hatching egg producer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission not to adjust his flock disposal date.

The appellant argued that the current bird-based allocation system prevented him from reaching his full market share and requested an order implementing an egg-based system.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was not treated differently than any other producer and that the current bird-based system was appropriate.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed a decision of the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board regarding the live prices of broiler, hen, and tom turkeys.

The Committee sought a reduction in prices due to declining energy costs and high storage stocks, while the Board argued that producers had not fully recovered from previous high energy costs.

The Tribunal accepted the Committee's proposal, ordering the Board to rescind Pricing Order 292, maintain the price of tom turkeys at the previous order's level, and reduce the price of hen and broiler turkeys by 2 cents/kg.

The appellant filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The municipality decided not to proceed with the petition, arguing it did not meet the criteria under Section 4 and that the existing drain was in good working condition.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the municipality acted improperly in refusing to act upon the petition, as a reasonable effort was made to describe the area needing drainage improvement.

The appeal was granted, and the municipality was ordered to appoint an engineer to proceed with the drainage works.

The appellants, a group of forage farmers, appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny their crop insurance claims for the 1999 hay crop.

The farmers argued that AGRICORP failed to properly administer the SYMFOY yield simulation model by using incorrect weather data, relying on closed weather stations, and using inconsistent rain gauges.

The Tribunal found that while AGRICORP's data collection methods had weaknesses and its failure to notify clients of a weather station change was negligent, it did not constitute a breach of contract.

AGRICORP had administered the plan consistently with the contract and corrected data errors when found.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a hatching egg producer, appealed a decision by the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission (OBHECC) to reduce his production potential for the 2000 and 2001 breeder placement cycle years, and challenged OBHECC's policy of averaging hatching egg production across all breeds to determine chick placements.

The appellant argued this policy created inequities due to the lower productivity of the Cobb breed he was assigned.

The Tribunal found that while a disparity in breed productivity existed, OBHECC had acted responsibly by developing a new breed indexing policy for 2002.

The Tribunal declined to make the policy retroactive or reverse the 2001 cutbacks, finding no gross inequity or unique economic hardship justifying intervention.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) cancelling 1,782 units of basic quota as a penalty for producing and marketing unreported chicken.

The appellant argued the penalty was disproportionately severe compared to other producers who received temporary reductions in future production rather than permanent quota cancellation.

The Tribunal found the penalty was appropriate and consistent with the CFO's treatment of producers who required a full investigation rather than signing an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting it was the appellant's second offence and emphasizing the need for strong deterrence to protect the integrity of the supply management system.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed a decision by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board to increase the live price of all categories of turkey by 2.0 cents per kilogram.

The Board argued the increase was necessary to offset rising heating and feed costs for producers.

The processors argued that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the turkeys being marketed for the Christmas season, and that processors could not pass on the price increase because wholesale prices were already established.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, directing the Board to rescind the price increase and reinstate the previous pricing order, finding that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the product being marketed and that processors had little opportunity to recover the increased costs.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) penalizing him for producing and marketing chicken without quota and failing to report production.

The appellant had an arrangement with a local processor where he exchanged live chickens for processed meat, which he used for personal consumption, family weddings, and charitable donations.

The Tribunal found that the chicken used for personal consumption was exempt from reporting.

However, the chicken used for family weddings and charitable donations constituted unreported marketing.

Recognizing the charitable nature of some donations as a mitigating factor, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and reduced the quota reduction penalty.

The appellant association of milk transporters appealed a decision by the respondent dairy board granting a 2% increase in the labour component of the Transport Rate Formula for 2000, seeking a 3% increase instead.

The appellant argued that milk truck drivers perform specialized duties as bulk tank milk graders and that a 3% increase was necessary to remain competitive with industry-wide wage growth.

The respondent contended that the 2% increase was equitable as it matched the increase given to its own staff.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that current market factors and industry wage settlements supported a 3% increase.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying a request for an exemption from the policy on the minimum amount of quota that may be fixed and allotted to a premises.

The appellant sought to produce its crop quota in two separate existing barns rather than build an extension to its main barn to accommodate a newly allotted basic quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO's minimum quota policy of 15,000 units per registered premises was applied fairly and consistently, and granting an exemption would be unfair to other producers who complied with the policy.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant an extension of time to complete the required building expansion.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding the cancellation of his processor's live chicken supply and the resulting cancellation of his production contracts.

The appellant argued he was aggrieved because he would have difficulty finding a new processor for his heavy roaster chickens in future quota periods.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO was within its statutory rights to deny a hearing and had already provided sufficient accommodation by allowing the appellant to adjust his production and marketing for the immediate quota period.

The appellant farm appealed a decision not to cancel an abnormal freezing point test result on a milk sample, which had resulted in a penalty for added or excess water.

The Tribunal found that no water was intentionally added, the abnormal result was likely caused by ice crystals in the bulk tank, and the producer had exercised due diligence in addressing the refrigeration problem.

The appeal was allowed, the test result was ordered expunged, and the penalty monies were reimbursed.