Arlen K. Sternberg

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal establishing a pricing formula for live chickens in Ontario and ordering the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend its regulations to implement the formula.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Farm Products Marketing Act to establish the pricing formula, fix the starting price, and direct the Commission to amend its regulations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal.

The court determined that costs should be awarded against the respondent Sudbury Downs Holding, as it stood in an adversarial relationship to the appellant, unlike the Ontario Racing Commission.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale for the application for judicial review, the motion for leave to appeal, and the appeal itself, totaling $42,880 in fees plus disbursements and GST.

Following a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Ontario Racing Commission convened a hearing to consider applications by ten horsemen seeking orders to permit them to enter horses and access Sudbury Downs Raceway.

The applicants had previously been excluded by Sudbury Downs under the Trespass to Property Act following their participation in boycotts organized by the Ontario Harness Horse Association.

The Commission found that while some applicants had engaged in disruptive conduct in the past, the public interest favoured allowing them to return to racing.

The Commission ordered that two applicants be granted full access, while the remaining eight be granted access subject to specific time limitations and conditions regarding future conduct.

The Ontario Racing Commission held a rehearing on penalty for a Standardbred trainer whose horse tested positive for a Class III drug.

The original penalty of a two-year suspension and $25,000 fine was quashed on judicial review, with directions to treat the violation as a first offence under the New Guidelines while retaining discretion to consider the trainer's prior record.

Considering the trainer's history of drug offences and the circumstances of the positive test, the Commission imposed a 10-month full suspension and a $50,000 fine, crediting time already served.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering them to pay the respondent for the redemption of preference shares.

The appellants argued that an oral collateral agreement delayed the payment obligations until the completion of a separate share sale, and that the respondent's interference in that sale justified equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the alleged collateral agreement contradicted the clear terms of the written redemption agreement and guarantee, which included an entire agreement clause.

The court also found that equitable set-off was expressly precluded by the guarantee and that the motions judge did not exceed her jurisdiction in granting summary judgment.

The appellant association appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review.

The respondent race track owner had excluded certain licensed members of the appellant from racing at its track, citing private property rights.

The Ontario Racing Commission declined jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the matter, believing it could not interfere with private property rights.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Commission's broad statutory powers to govern and regulate horse racing in the public interest necessarily included the power to make decisions that incidentally affect private property rights.

The Commission was directed to hold a hearing.

Multiple consolidated appeals challenged the provincial system for allocating live chicken to Ontario processors under supply management.

The Tribunal conducted a de novo industry-wide policy hearing and substantially restructured the allocation regime by requiring confidential processor requests, use of aggregate processor demand within the national growth cap, stakeholder meetings where the cap is exceeded or national approval is refused, and a hybrid processor allocation model combining historic base with equal-percentage cuts to growth requests.

The Tribunal also imposed a 100% slaughter rule with penalties, created a capped new entrant program, excluded wholesale price from the live price formula, directed the development of a feed-chick-producer margin pricing formula and revised pricing grid, and ordered amendment of the export policy to remove the producer participation threshold.

The appeals resulted in detailed mandatory directions to the local board and the Commission on supply determination, processor allocation, pricing, category compliance, new entrants, and exports.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario brought a pre-hearing application seeking an order to exclude the actual decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission and any references to it from the materials placed before the Tribunal prior to the hearing.

The applicant argued that because the appeal was proceeding as a hearing de novo, the Commission's decision had no probative value and its inclusion might taint the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the inclusion of the decision and references to it in pre-hearing filings did not violate a previous procedural order and was consistent with the statutory requirement to provide all relevant materials to the Tribunal.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario from a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal would proceed as a hearing de novo and consolidated several related appeals.

The order outlined the issues to be addressed, including total Ontario domestic supply determination, individual processor allocation, category requirements, price determination, and export policy.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for document disclosure and scheduled the hearing dates.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission regarding the allocation of live chicken to processors.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant requested that the hearing be bifurcated to deal with three preliminary jurisdictional issues—lack of notice, exceeding jurisdiction, and bias—before proceeding to the substantive merits.

Despite concerns from some participants about delay and duplication, the Tribunal ordered that the jurisdictional issues be heard first as questions of law, reserving the right to join them with the substantive hearing if material evidence becomes controversial.

A real estate broker appealed from a judgment denying commission after a purchaser entered into an agreement of purchase and sale, paid a deposit, and then refused to close.

The majority held that the listing agreement governed the broker's entitlement and required a completed sale, absent vendor default, before commission became payable.

Because the purchaser was unwilling to complete the transaction and the vendor had not reneged, the broker failed to establish entitlement to commission or to the deposit.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding that procurement of a valid offer was sufficient to trigger commission.