Catherine McCorquodale

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by St. Brigid's Dairy Ltd. regarding a request for 2023 incentive days and changes to DFO policies.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal regarding the 2023 incentive days, finding it was filed out of time, the appellant had previously abandoned an identical appeal, and the claim for financial compensation was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims without a hearing because the appellant failed to first apply to the DFO board for a hearing as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

This case concerned a dispute over the primary residence of an 8-year-old child, Paislee, following the parents' separation.

The applicant father sought to maintain Paislee's primary residence in Mitchell, Ontario, while the respondent mother sought to relocate Paislee to Sarnia, Ontario, where the mother resided with her new partner and their children.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under sections 39.4(3) and 24(3) of the Children's Law Reform Act, giving significant weight to Paislee's expressed views and preferences, her bond with her half and step-siblings, and concerns regarding her relationship with the father's new partner.

The court ultimately granted the mother's request for primary residence in Sarnia, effective September 1, 2024, with joint decision-making responsibility and a revised parenting schedule.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final custody order less than two months after it was made on consent.

He sought joint custody and changes to the access schedule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances as required by section 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The father's relocation and the birth of a child in his new relationship did not constitute a material change, and his uncooperative behaviour was inimical to joint custody.