Robert Scouller

The appellant, a candidate in a Dairy Farmers of Ontario board election, appealed the Returning Officer's decision to reject 10 ballots postmarked the day after the regulatory deadline.

The appellant argued the ballots might have been consigned to the post office on the deadline day but postmarked late due to local post office practices.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Returning Officer correctly applied Section 14(4) of Regulation 760 of the Milk Act, which requires the officer to be satisfied the ballots were mailed or consigned by the deadline, and that relying on the postmark provides an objective standard.

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 appellant, Knizat Farm Inc., appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding a crop insurance claim for its 2010 grape crop.

Agricorp had paid 58% of the maximum 85% insured value, attributing the remaining loss to uninsured perils such as Black Rot and Powdery Mildew.

The appellant argued the damage was primarily due to insured perils, specifically frost.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in Agricorp's assessment of the disease damage and insufficient consideration of the frost damage across the different microclimates of the rented vineyards.

The Tribunal ordered the payout to be adjusted from 58% to 70% of the maximum insured value.

The appellant, owner of a meat plant, appealed a Director's decision suspending his license for three days for obstructing an inspector under the Food Safety and Quality Act.

The appellant had ordered an inspector to leave his plant and imposed conditions on her return.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions amounted to obstruction, as inspection requires unrestricted access to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal also found the appellant had received prior warning about obstruction and was aware of his obligations.

The appeal was dismissed and the three-day license suspension was upheld.

The appellant appealed a Director's decision to revoke his meat plant operating license under the Food Safety and Quality Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had consistently and wilfully breached the Act and its Regulation by removing a required water sampling tap, failing to keep maintenance and temperature records, and refusing to comply with inspector orders.

Given the appellant's history of non-compliance, reckless attitude toward food safety, and lack of reasonable prospect for future compliance, the Tribunal concluded it was in the public interest to revoke the license.

The appeal was dismissed.