Susan Whelan

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture 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 reviewed the application against the amended criteria in O. Reg. 723/93.

Finding that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including having an annual membership fee of at least $195, being incorporated, representing persons carrying on farming businesses, providing advice to governments, and agreeing to provide special funding to the eligible francophone organization, the Tribunal granted the accreditation for a period of three years.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario 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 reviewed the application against the newly amended criteria in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including membership fee requirements, incorporation, purpose, and funding agreements, the Tribunal granted the accreditation for a period of three years.

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 appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to transfer his dairy quota to his daughter.

The DFO denied the transfer because it would effectively merge the quota with the daughter's in-laws' existing dairy operation, which the DFO argued was prohibited under its 2010 Parent to Child Transfer policy.

The Tribunal found that the plain language of the 2010 policy did not actually prohibit the specific type of transfer requested, despite the DFO's stated intentions to prevent mergers.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the DFO to process the quota transfer.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to transfer his dairy quota to his daughter.

The DFO had denied the request on the basis that the transfer would effectively merge the quota with her husband's family's existing dairy operation, which the DFO argued was prohibited under its 2010 policy changes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the plain language of the 2010 Parent to Child Transfer policy did not actually prohibit the requested transfer, despite the DFO's stated intentions to prevent mergers.

The Tribunal ordered the quota transferred.

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 applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The applicant argued that the original hearing was not bilingual as requested, the translation services were inadequate, and the Panel failed to consider important factors.

The Vice Chair found that the applicant had agreed to consecutive translation, waived the right to full translation at the hearing, and that any translation errors were not material to the decision.

The request for review was denied.

The appellant, a retired veterinarian, appealed the revocation of his Class 1 Licence to sell livestock medicines and the seizure of his medicines.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had voluntarily resigned from the licensing system prior to the provisional suspension and revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also found that the Ministry committed procedural errors by failing to issue a warning letter and failing to provide an opportunity for compliance before the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the return of the seized medicines and personal items, and directed that the voluntary resignation not be considered negatively in any future licence application.

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, 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.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Story Drain project under the Drainage Act.

The project involved incorporating an existing private drain enclosure into the municipal drain and replacing a failed section.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of prior engineering costs, the adequacy of allowances for right-of-way and existing drains, the assessment ratios, and the location of the outlet.

The Tribunal ordered a nominal allowance for the existing drain, adjusted the Benefit/Outlet assessment ratios to 60/40, removed a portion of the prior engineering costs, and confirmed the existing outlet location.

Requests for costs were denied.

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.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the replacement of a closed tile drain on agricultural land located in a flood plain.

The appellants argued the proposed 24-inch tile was unnecessarily large, that blowouts were caused by floodwaters rather than inadequate capacity, and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's design standard was reasonable and in accordance with the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Tribunal upheld the construction assessments but ordered revisions to the maintenance assessments and deleted a right-of-way allowance that had been previously paid.

The Tribunal also ordered the municipality to bear the Engineer's hearing costs due to inadequate communication during the process.

The moving party requested a stay of point #3 of the Tribunal's November 8, 2010 decision regarding a drainage works project, pending a review of that decision.

The Tribunal granted the stay to avoid unnecessary costs being added to the drainage works while the request for review is under consideration, finding that no party would be prejudiced by the stay.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report for the Mindemoya Drain and Yonge Street Reconstruction project under the Drainage Act.

One appellant withdrew due to health reasons.

The remaining two appellants challenged the adequacy of allowances for loss of access, the location of maintenance easements, and the handling of excavated soil and trees on their properties.

The Tribunal ordered amendments to the report, including relocating a maintenance easement, increasing allowances for loss of access and tree removal, requiring specific soil handling procedures, and protecting sinkholes as part of the drainage works.

The Tribunal also ordered the removal of certain watershed areas from the assessment schedule.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the installation and assessment of a new residential access culvert over a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the municipality had improperly installed a previous culvert in 1996 and that the municipality should bear the entire cost of the new culvert.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's decision in 1995 to use a 'letter of sizing' instead of a proper Engineer's Report contributed to the dispute.

The Tribunal ordered the relocation of a hydro pole guy wire to be included in the works, dismissed requests to extend the driveway and amend lot references, and reapportioned the $13,400 estimated cost of the works, assessing $7,900 to the appellants and $5,500 to the municipality.

The appellant moved to postpone a scheduled hearing regarding the Mindemoya Drain and Yonge Street Reconstruction project.

The appellant cited concerns about a neighbouring drainage project, insufficient time to review information, and a recently diagnosed medical condition requiring immediate surgery.

The Tribunal found the medical condition to be a sufficient reason for adjournment and ordered the hearing postponed to September 2010.

The applicant sought a hearing under the Farm Implements Act regarding a colour sorting machine.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicant had included 'without prejudice' mediation documents in his submission brief.

The Tribunal panel determined that it could not continue to adjudicate the matter without an apprehension of bias after having reviewed the confidential documents.

The panel recused itself, ordered the appointment of a new panel, and directed the applicant to resubmit his document brief without the confidential materials.

The Tribunal also ordered the parties to file submissions regarding its jurisdiction to hear new claims raised by the applicant.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the construction of a new residential access culvert over a municipal drain.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal identified the issues under appeal, which included requests to modify the Engineer's Report and to assess the entire cost of the drainage works to the municipality due to an alleged past error in installing an existing culvert.

The Tribunal determined it had jurisdiction over the appeals under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act and ordered the matter to proceed to a full hearing.

The appellant turkey producers appealed a decision of the Turkey Farmers of Ontario denying their request to revise or revoke an over marketing penalty of $13,174.85.

The penalty was imposed because the appellants failed to obtain the required lease and approval to produce turkeys on a specific property, resulting in an over marketing of quota.

The Tribunal found that the appellants were aware of the lease requirement and were responsible for the failure to have it in place.

The appeal was denied and the penalty was upheld.