The respondents, a tobacco farmer and his company, were found by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to have engaged in the unlawful sale of tobacco outside the quota system.
The Board cancelled their tobacco quota.
The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal substantially confirmed the Board's decision.
On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decisions, applying a correctness standard of review and finding errors of law, including a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Board and the Tribunal appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court erred by failing to apply the pragmatic and functional approach, which dictated a reasonableness standard of review.
The Court of Appeal found the Tribunal's factual findings and application of the standard of proof were reasonable, and that no reasonable apprehension of bias was established.
However, the Court found the Tribunal's penalty decision unreasonable because it upheld the Board's penalty without explaining why it did so despite making different factual findings.
The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the penalty.
