Donald R. Good

The appellants, owners of a dairy farm, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for a medical exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of their quota.

The primary operator was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and subsequently suffered a severe arm injury in a farm accident, forcing the sale of the herd and quota.

The Tribunal found that the DFO's policy prohibiting medical exemptions was implemented after the appellants' quota sale and exemption request, and could not be applied retroactively.

Noting the DFO's history of granting exemptions in similar unexpected circumstances, the Tribunal granted the appeal on compassionate grounds and ordered the DFO to reimburse the $304,729.71 transfer assessment.

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 appealed a trial judgment dismissing their counterclaim regarding a crop insurance dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no agency relationship between the respondents and that the Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.

Because the appellants failed to appeal to the Tribunal within the one-year limitation period, their claim was out of time and relief from forfeiture was unavailable as the failure constituted non-compliance rather than imperfect compliance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondents sued Ontario in negligence after their dairy herd suffered health problems and low milk production, alleging that asphalt and concrete waste deposited on their farm by the Ministry of Transportation in the 1960s contaminated their well water.

The trial judge found Ontario liable and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and dismissed the action.

The Court held that Ontario did not breach the standard of care because the risk of harm to the cattle from the buried waste was not reasonably foreseeable in the 1960s.

Furthermore, Ontario had no statutory or common law duty to remove the waste or remediate the water, as testing showed the water met the allowable provincial drinking standards.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of his milk quota.

The appellant argued he had planned an orderly exit from the industry prior to the implementation of the assessment policy and raised medical grounds not previously submitted to the board.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the new medical evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, concluding the appellant did not experience undue hardship and his exit from the industry was not imminent when the policy was implemented.

The applicant farm equipment dealer brought a motion for production and discovery against a non-party trade association, seeking confidential market share data to challenge the respondent manufacturer's termination of their dealership agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the requested data was protected by the common law privilege of confidentiality and the applicant failed to establish the relevance and importance of the documents.

The Tribunal also refused leave to examine the non-party for discovery, noting it would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant was ordered to pay the non-party's costs of the motion.

On a motion within an appeal from dairy quota policy changes, the Tribunal held that an appeal from the respondent board's new quota policies triggered the automatic stay under s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the Tribunal found a serious issue, irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay remained wholly in place, and a balance of inconvenience favouring the respondent board.

The Tribunal nevertheless held that statutory stays should be lifted cautiously and that the original stay had suspended the new policies in their entirety.

It limited the stay so that only producer members of the appellant organization as of the launch date of the appeal remained subject to the old 2006 policies pending the appeal.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to lift or vary an automatic stay imposed on its March 2009 quota policy pending an appeal by the Ontario Quota Rights Organization (OQRO).

The OQRO brought a motion to adjourn the DFO's motion to allow for cross-examination.

The Tribunal acknowledged the urgency of determining the stay before the policy's effective date but granted a short adjournment to ensure a full record and allow the OQRO to prepare its argument effectively.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal by the Ontario Quota Rights Organization and individual dairy farmers against a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting deadlines for document disclosure, expert reports, and the filing of a common book of documents.

The Tribunal also scheduled a hearing for the respondent's motion to lift the statutory stay of its decision.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of their production quota.

The appellants argued they were entitled to a medical exemption due to the severe and debilitating health issues of the principal operator, which forced their imminent exit from the industry.

The Tribunal found that the DFO's exemption request procedure was flawed and that the appellants were not given an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal granted the appeal on compassionate grounds, finding that the appellants' orderly exit was already in progress prior to the policy's implementation and that the DFO committed procedural errors.

The DFO was ordered to refund the $114,492.80 assessment.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal addressed two contentious issues regarding evidence and discovery.

First, an intervener sought to file additional confidential documents after the deadline; the Tribunal directed them to bring a motion for leave.

Second, the appellant sought market data from another intervener who was treated as a non-party for discovery purposes; the Tribunal directed the appellant to bring a motion for third-party production under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Tribunal also issued orders on consent regarding expert reports, discovery undertakings, and scheduling.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging that one of the panel members had a conflict of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The member, an active dairy farmer whose farm was subject to DFO regulatory action, failed to disclose his status until after the hearing concluded.

The Tribunal found that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO breached the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new hearing ordered.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting the Tribunal review and set aside its previous decision regarding an appeal by John and Susanna Cayer.

The DFO argued that one of the panel members, an active dairy farmer with a regulatory history with the DFO, had a conflict of interest and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by failing to disclose his status at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO violated the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the public's confidence in the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new panel was assigned to rehear the matter.

The applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied his crop insurance claim for soybeans and allowed partial recovery for red spring wheat.

The applicant argued the Tribunal misapplied the law on the strict interpretation of insurance contracts.

The Vice Chair found that the Tribunal's approach to interpreting the crop insurance contract was inconsistent with the law, constituting a material error of law.

The request for a review of the decision was granted.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision upholding somatic cell count (SCC) penalties imposed on their milk production for June, July, and August 2006.

They alleged that the official milk samples had been tampered with or improperly tested, and presented independent test results that differed from the official results.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of tampering or testing inaccuracies, noting that the independent samples had been frozen, which could alter SCC results.

The appeal was dismissed and the official SCC test results were confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a removal order for animals on his farm, arguing that the veterinarian's certificate was false because the veterinarian did not physically examine every animal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a 'hands-on' examination of every animal is not required under s. 14 of the OSPCAA.

The veterinarian's visual observation of the herd, combined with a close examination of one animal and the surrounding circumstances, constituted a sufficient examination to ground the removal order.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondent bank, as the holder of the appellants' guarantee, was not a 'secured creditor' under section 2 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge, finding that the respondent was not required to give the appellants notice under section 21(1) of the Act before commencing an action on the guarantee.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant municipality purchased an abandoned railway line and developed it into a trailway.

When adjoining landowners demanded fencing under the Line Fences Act, the municipality passed a by-law designating the trailway as a public highway to exempt itself from the fencing obligation.

The application judge quashed the by-law, finding it was passed in bad faith to avoid the cost of fencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the municipality's appeal, holding that while courts owe deference to municipal decisions, good faith remains a central foundation for the validity of a by-law, and the record supported the finding of bad faith.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granted by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The requesting parties sought a review of a previous Tribunal decision that quashed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act and assessed costs against them.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to review the decision to hear late-filed appeals, finding no material error of law.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to review the costs award, as the requesting parties had not been given an opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The original panel was ordered to reconvene to receive written submissions on the allocation of costs.