William Schaefer

The appellants, dairy farmers operating an organic farm, appealed a decision imposing a $530.46 penalty after a milk sample from their bulk tank tested positive for an abnormal freezing point.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative and questioned the collection, transportation, and testing methods, citing extreme cold weather and potential human error.

The Tribunal found that the respondent followed all proper procedures to maintain the integrity of the sample and that the appellants' challenge was based on pure speculation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld.

The appellant, an unincorporated association of dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) not to rescind its November 2006 Quota Policy on Transfer Assessments.

The appellant argued the policy was flawed and requested rescission along with over $15 million in compensation for its members.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant individual compensation as it was not requested before the DFO.

On the merits, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the Ontario dairy industry was overcapitalized and that the policy successfully stabilized quota values.

The Tribunal concluded the positive impacts of the policy on the industry outweighed the negative impacts on the appellant's members, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, organic turkey farmers, appealed a regulation by the Turkey Farmers of Ontario (TFO) requiring turkeys raised in non-confinement or open-air systems to be kept under a solid roof.

The appellants argued this would make organic certification impossible and financially unviable.

The TFO argued the regulation was necessary to prevent the spread of avian influenza from wild birds to domestic flocks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the TFO was justified in implementing the regulation as a preventative measure against avian influenza, and that the added cost to organic producers was outweighed by the safety benefits to the industry.

The Elphicks petitioned for a municipal drain to address subsurface water issues in their backyard.

The appointed Engineer prepared a report recommending a drain extending across multiple properties, with costs assessed among the landowners.

Several neighbours appealed under s. 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing the drain was unnecessary and provided them no benefit.

Appeals were also filed under s. 54 regarding the Court of Revision's alteration of the assessments.

The Tribunal found a valid drainage problem existed but ordered the drain truncated to minimize costs while still providing a legal outlet.

A majority of the Tribunal also adjusted the benefit assessments, finding the Elphicks were the primary beneficiaries of the works.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the proposed Elphick Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that no drainage problem existed and that the costs outweighed any benefits.

The Tribunal found that a valid drainage problem existed in the Elphicks' back yard but ordered the proposed drain to be truncated to reduce costs while still providing a sufficient legal outlet.

A majority of the Tribunal also revised the benefit assessments, finding that the Elphick property would be the greater beneficiary of the works.

The appeal was allowed in part.