Rob Scouller

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission brought a motion arguing the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over an appeal by the Ontario Dairy Council.

The Commission contended its decision to allow a convenience store to test market a three-litre milk jug was of general application.

The Tribunal found the decision was of specific application because it involved an ad hoc approach and idiosyncratic conditions under section 18 of Regulation 753, rather than a general prescription under section 8.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the motion and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant, a farm implement dealer, appealed the non-renewal of its dealer agreement by the respondent manufacturer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Farm Implements Act and Ontario Regulation 123/06 by failing to provide the required written notice with full reasons and an opportunity to cure before deciding not to renew the agreement.

The Tribunal determined that the regulation applied retrospectively to the existing contract, removing the respondent's unfettered right to not renew.

The Tribunal awarded the appellant damages for loss of profits based on a two-year reasonable notice period and for obsolete assets, totaling $139,846 plus pre-judgment interest.

During the continuation of a hearing to consider damages, the appellant requested a voir dire regarding the admissibility of revised financial data and an expert report addendum.

The appellant had recently discovered that its original damages claim relied on projections rather than actual sales and expenses data now available.

The respondent objected on grounds of relevance and timing.

The Tribunal admitted the evidence, finding it prima facie relevant and concluding that the prejudice to the appellant of excluding it outweighed the prejudice to the respondent.

To mitigate any prejudice, the Tribunal granted a short adjournment, permitted further limited examination for discovery, and allowed the respondent to supplement its expert report.

At a pre-hearing conference following a Divisional Court order remitting certain liability issues back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal determined procedural matters for the resumed hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that CNH would lead evidence first on the remitted liability issues, as they arose from CNH's appeal.

The Tribunal also ordered that the liability and damages phases of the hearing, which had previously been bifurcated, be re-joined to avoid unnecessary delay and prejudice, noting that the original reasons for bifurcation no longer existed.

The applicant purchased a colour sorting machine for agricultural use that failed to perform to specifications within the first ten days of use.

Despite actual notice, the dealer and distributor failed to repair the machine, replace it, or terminate the sale agreement as required by the Farm Implements Act.

The Tribunal ordered the termination of the sale agreement and directed the distributor and dealer to refund the purchase price to the applicant.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request to transfer his remaining milk quota to his family's adjacent dairy farm corporation.

The appellant sought an exemption from DFO policy to allow the transfer and merger of the quota due to financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found that an exemption was warranted for the portion of the quota originally transferred from the father to the son in 1994, as there was a verbal agreement for its return.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the remaining quota purchased independently by the appellant, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exemption from the current DFO policy.

The applicant farm implement dealer brought a dispute against the respondent manufacturer regarding the end of their 19-year business relationship and warranty repair reimbursements.

The Tribunal divided the hearing into two phases, with Phase 1 focusing on liability.

The Tribunal found that the manufacturer did not breach section 18 of the Farm Implements Act regarding warranty reimbursements, as it paid the dealer in accordance with their existing agreement.

However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer breached Ontario Regulation 123/06 by refusing to renew the dealership agreement, as the Regulation removed the manufacturer's contractual right to unilaterally non-renew and required that renewal approval not be unreasonably withheld.

Sharalea Farms Inc. appealed to the Tribunal regarding alleged defects in a Case IH tractor, a Case IH loader, and a Hardi sprayer purchased from Vandenbrink Farm Equipment.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear disputes involving used farm implements and contractual warranties under the Farm Implements Act.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the tractor and loader, finding that the alleged defects either arose after the applicable statutory and contractual warranties had expired or were not proven to be defects.

However, the Tribunal found that several defects in the sprayer were reported during the contractual warranty period and ordered the dealer to repair or replace the defective components.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his crop insurance claim for 57 acres of processing peas.

The crop was rejected by the processor due to a heavy infestation of nightshade weed.

The appellant argued the weed growth was caused by excessive rainfall, an insured peril, which leached the applied herbicide.

Agricorp maintained the loss was due to inadequate weed control, an uninsured peril.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious signs of water damage to the crop and concluding that the appellant failed to implement adequate weed management practices to control the known nightshade issue.

The appellant, owner of a meat processing plant, appealed a decision by the Director suspending his operating licence for five days for failing to keep daily written records of water disinfection (chlorine levels).

The Tribunal found that the Food Safety and Quality Act, its regulations, and the Safe Drinking Water Act require the operator to conduct daily testing of the chlorine level, retain the results in writing, and provide them to inspectors upon request.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to meet these statutory obligations and confirmed the Director's decision to suspend the licence.

Sure Fresh Foods Inc. appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to review and adjust a levy imposed by the Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC) for failing to meet market development commitments.

The CFO raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, jurisdiction, and collateral attack.

The Tribunal found the appeal was timely and that it had jurisdiction to review CFO decisions, but concluded the appeal was an impermissible collateral attack on the CFC's levy decision, which had already been unsuccessfully appealed to the National Farm Products Council.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Turkey Farmers of Ontario imposing a condition on the transfer of turkey quota to him.

The condition required the appellant to acquire his own premises suitable for turkey production within five years.

The appellant argued that his 10% ownership of a numbered company that operated the farm satisfied the policy requirement for beneficial ownership.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not control the property and that the marketing board's policy requiring quota to be in the same name as the owner of the land was consistently applied to prevent speculation.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging that one of the panel members had a conflict of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The member, an active dairy farmer whose farm was subject to DFO regulatory action, failed to disclose his status until after the hearing concluded.

The Tribunal found that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO breached the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new hearing ordered.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting the Tribunal review and set aside its previous decision regarding an appeal by John and Susanna Cayer.

The DFO argued that one of the panel members, an active dairy farmer with a regulatory history with the DFO, had a conflict of interest and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by failing to disclose his status at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO violated the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the public's confidence in the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new panel was assigned to rehear the matter.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision upholding a high bacteria test result on milk produced on his farm, which prevented him from receiving an annual quality award.

The appellant argued the high count was caused by unauthorized adjustments to his milking equipment by technicians servicing a time-temperature recording device.

The Tribunal found the laboratory test result was valid and that the evidence did not support the contention that the technicians' actions caused the high bacteria count.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, an organic soybean farmer, appealed AGRICORP's decision to adjust his 2002 crop insurance claim to 50% of the yield shortfall.

The appellant argued the low yield was due to drought, while AGRICORP contended it was caused by weed pressure and poor management, which are uninsured perils, and noted the appellant failed to report the damage prior to harvest.

The Tribunal found that both weed pressure and drought contributed to the loss, but the appellant failed to prove the loss was caused solely by insured perils.

The appeal was denied, and the claim was settled at 50% of the shortfall.