Tom Hall

The Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board (OPPMB) brought a motion to lift an automatic stay on its decision to increase the service charge on hogs by $0.80 per hog.

The appellants, Elite Swine Inc. and Cold Springs Farm Ltd., had appealed the OPPMB's decision not to rescind the increase.

The Tribunal found that the OPPMB's decision was an exercise of a statutory power of decision, triggering an automatic stay under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the OPPMB's motion to lift the stay, finding that the OPPMB failed to demonstrate it would suffer irreparable harm if the stay remained in place pending the appeal.

Georgian Bay Milk Company Ltd. appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying its request to extend the transition period for its non-quota holding producers to continue shipping export milk without quota.

The appellant sought an extension until a national dairy export system was established and BSE border closures were resolved.

The Tribunal denied the appeal for an indefinite extension, finding that a parallel milk marketing system would be detrimental to the quota-based system.

However, recognizing the impact of the BSE crisis, the Tribunal extended the transition period to July 31, 2004, after which the producers must comply with the minimum quota requirement.

The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board brought a motion requesting the Tribunal refuse to hear an appeal by a tobacco grower regarding a request to transfer Basic Production Quota with marketing quota attached.

The Tribunal found that the grower had not completed the required quota transfer application forms, and therefore had not made an application for a hearing to the Board as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal concluded it had no authority to hear the appeal and granted the Board's motion.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report regarding a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to re-route a portion of the drain to avoid a conflict with the appellants' septic system.

At the hearing, another landowner requested a modification to shorten a proposed culvert on his property, which would reduce costs.

The Tribunal approved the minutes of settlement and ordered the engineer's report to be amended to reflect the re-routing and the shortened culvert, adjusting the cost and assessment schedules accordingly.

The appellant appealed the special assessments levied against his properties for improvements to a municipal drain.

The original plan to close the drain was rejected by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans due to fish habitat concerns, resulting in a revised engineer's report and increased engineering costs.

The Tribunal found that the municipality and the engineer should have resolved the environmental issues before incurring significant design costs, and that the municipality improperly directed the preparation of a report that conflicted with the DFO's prohibition.

The Tribunal ordered the special assessments against the appellant and other landowners reduced, with the balance of the engineering costs assessed to the municipality.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) cancelling 1,782 units of basic quota as a penalty for producing and marketing unreported chicken.

The appellant argued the penalty was disproportionately severe compared to other producers who received temporary reductions in future production rather than permanent quota cancellation.

The Tribunal found the penalty was appropriate and consistent with the CFO's treatment of producers who required a full investigation rather than signing an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting it was the appellant's second offence and emphasizing the need for strong deterrence to protect the integrity of the supply management system.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report on the Davis Drain, arguing that his property would not benefit from the proposed drainage works and his assessment was unfair.

The engineer testified that the upgrades were necessary to resolve flooding in a subdivision and explained the methodology for apportioning costs between agricultural and residential properties.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the engineer's division of costs and calculation of assessments were fair, reasonable, and consistently applied.