Tim Sutton

Multiple hog producers appealed a marketing board decision increasing the service charge on Ontario hogs by $0.80 per hog to fund defence of U.S. countervail and anti-dumping proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the board acted within its authority and that the estimated defence costs justified the increased charge for a one-year period.

It rejected arguments that the defence should be financed from reserves or by cutting ongoing operations, finding that maintaining working capital and continuing other industry initiatives was fiscally prudent.

The appeals were dismissed, but the Tribunal ordered annual reporting to producers and required the increased fee to end once the trade-action expenses were paid.

The appellant, a milk producer, appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance permanently shutting him off from the milk market after he was caught transferring milk from his son's farm into his own bulk tank.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did contravene Regulation 761 by receiving the transferred milk.

However, the Tribunal held that the Director exceeded his authority in permanently shutting off the appellant, as the regulation only permitted a monetary penalty of $2 per hectolitre for a first offence within a 12-month period.

The appeal was granted and the penalty was reduced accordingly.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) cancelling their milk production licenses and quotas.

The DFO had penalized the appellants for shipping milk outside the DFO system to a U.S. broker in violation of DFO Regulation 08/03 and for ignoring 'cease and desist' orders.

The Tribunal found that the appellants deliberately contravened the regulations and disregarded the orders.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the appellants' licenses but reduced the quota cancellation penalties, ordering the remaining quota to be sold on the exchange or forfeited.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed the Director's decision to impose freezing point penalties on his milk in January and February 2003, which resulted in a permanent shut-off from the milk market due to accumulating four penalties within a 12-month period.

The appellant admitted that water was introduced into the bulk tank by his father's practices but argued he was misled by the automated telephone system regarding the test results.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties, finding that the test results were accurate, the appellant was responsible for milk quality, and adequate notice was provided through multiple channels.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his claim for an Unseeded Acreage Benefit (USAB) for 958 acres of crops.

The appellant argued he was unable to plant due to excessive moisture and claimed eligibility based on his 2000 crop year.

Agricorp denied the claim because the appellant failed to report his inability to plant before the deadline and planted 290 acres of soybeans late, which were ineligible for insurance.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, finding the appellant was eligible for USAB for 695 acres, minus 130 acres planted before the deadline and 290 acres planted after the deadline, resulting in a USAB entitlement for 275 acres.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario refusing to change its plan for complying with a WTO ruling on milk export practices.

The respondent brought a motion to limit the scope of the automatic stay of its decision, and the appellant requested an adjournment of the hearing.

On consent of both parties, the Tribunal ordered that the automatic stay be suspended as it affects these parties and granted the adjournment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying her request for a reduction in a monetary penalty of $2,642.53 assessed for over-marketing chicken.

The appellant argued that the processor was partially responsible for the over-production and should share the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate private contractual disputes between producers and processors, and noting that the appellant agreed the penalty amount itself was fair.