Tim Mousseau

The appellant, an Ontario chicken producer, appealed decisions of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) declining his request to revoke a regulation and policy amendment that placed a moratorium on increasing processing contracts with Quebec processors.

The appellant argued the amendments were ultra vires as they controlled interprovincial trade.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pith and substance of the impugned instruments was the regulation of chicken marketing transactions within Ontario, which falls squarely within the CFO's delegated authority under the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Several landowners appealed their assessments under the Drainage Act for the Moon Drain 2010, seeking a 12% reduction.

They argued the Engineer showed favouritism to one landowner by designing the drain with a 38mm drainage coefficient instead of a 25mm coefficient, which increased costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the Engineer acted independently and that the 38mm coefficient was appropriate for a system allowing direct surface water entry, consistent with the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) requested full party status in an ongoing appeal by a chicken producer challenging a regulatory moratorium imposed by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

The Tribunal considered the common law principles of intervention and determined that granting full party status on the eve of the hearing would be unfair to the existing parties.

However, recognizing AOCP's sufficient interest in the subject matter, the Tribunal granted AOCP intervenor status to make submissions as a friend of the court.

Several landowners appealed the decisions of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Baer Municipal Drain.

At the hearing, the Tribunal discovered that the Engineer's Report adopted by the municipal council and circulated to landowners was neither signed nor sealed by the engineer.

The Tribunal found that the unsigned and unsealed report was not a valid report under the Drainage Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Engineer's Report, rendering the appeals moot, and directed that the proper statutory process be followed for adopting a new report.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the assessments were too high and that downstream drainage issues should be addressed first.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed work, which included relocating a portion of the drain to follow the natural gradient, was necessary and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found the assessments fair and equitable and dismissed the appeals, while granting the engineer's request to amend the working corridor and corresponding allowances.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Miller Drainage Works 1969.

The appellant sought to have the open channel of the drain on his property enclosed, as originally proposed in the Engineer's preliminary report.

The Tribunal found that the municipal council exceeded its jurisdiction by exerting undue influence on the Engineer to change the report's recommendations from a drain enclosure to an access culvert, and that the Engineer failed to exercise independent judgment.

The Tribunal set aside the Report and ordered the municipality to appoint a new Engineer to prepare a final report for the enclosure of the drain.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed certain 2005 and 2009 policies of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the portion of the appeal relating to the 2005 policies, arguing the appellant had known of them for more than a year and was not aggrieved by them.

The Tribunal granted the motion, exercising its discretion under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to refuse to hear the appeal of the 2005 policies.

The Tribunal noted the policies were developed through a negotiated process, the industry had relied on them for four years, and the requested change to open contracting would fundamentally alter the assurance of supply system.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act, seeking to redirect proposed drainage away from his property to a North Drain, remove his property from the drainage area, and eliminate his assessments.

The Tribunal heard competing expert engineering evidence regarding natural surface water flow and project costs.

The Tribunal accepted the municipal engineer's conclusion that natural overland flow is predominantly from northeast to southwest and that the proposed Drain A option was the most practical solution.

The Tribunal found the appellant's assessments for benefit and outlet to be fair and equitable.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant appealed his drainage assessment under the Drainage Act, arguing that his reforestation efforts significantly reduced surface water runoff from his property, rendering the drain of no benefit to him.

The Tribunal accepted that reforestation reduces runoff but noted the engineer had already applied a 50% reduction to the appellant's assessment to account for this.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessments were upheld.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) declining his request to revoke CFO Regulation 2274-2009.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant raised broader policy issues regarding quota allocation and assurance of supply, as well as a constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal held that the broader policy issues had not been considered by the CFO at first instance.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal held in abeyance to allow the appellant to apply to the CFO for a hearing on the broader policy issues under section 17(1) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, and to provide proper notice of any constitutional question.

The appellant, a family farming corporation, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued for an exemption based on financial hardship and the primary operator's medical condition (foot arthritis) which prevented him from milking cows.

The Tribunal found that the operator's medical condition was not sufficiently special or extraordinary to warrant an exemption, noting he continued to actively farm in cash cropping and the DFO's established policy against medical exemptions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued the sale was forced due to the primary operator's back condition.

The Tribunal found that the operator's condition did not constitute a unique or extraordinary circumstance warranting special consideration, especially since he continued to work as a crop farmer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act, arguing that the existing tile drain across his agricultural lands was sufficient and did not need to be replaced, and that his assessments should be reduced accordingly.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the existing drain was in poor repair, too shallow, and had insufficient capacity for the increased flows from the reconstructed upstream tile.

The Tribunal found the proposed reconstruction necessary and the assessments fair, dismissing the appeals.

The appellants, owners of a dairy farm, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for a medical exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of their quota.

The primary operator was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and subsequently suffered a severe arm injury in a farm accident, forcing the sale of the herd and quota.

The Tribunal found that the DFO's policy prohibiting medical exemptions was implemented after the appellants' quota sale and exemption request, and could not be applied retroactively.

Noting the DFO's history of granting exemptions in similar unexpected circumstances, the Tribunal granted the appeal on compassionate grounds and ordered the DFO to reimburse the $304,729.71 transfer assessment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding his assessment for the Greisbach Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued his assessment of approximately 75% of the total cost was unfair, as upstream landowners needed the drain more and his property did not experience flooding.

The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the new tile drain was to convey surface water from the road and upstream lands.

The Tribunal adjusted the benefit/outlet assessment split from 75%/25% to 60%/40% and reduced the appellant's total assessment from $21,618 to $13,450, redistributing the costs to the upstream landowners and the municipality.