Donald R. Good

The Tribunal reviewed its previous decision regarding the assessment of the Municipality's costs against the appellants in a dispute over the Eden Grove Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that they did not appeal the engineer's report on the advice of the Municipality, and that the Municipality chose the engineer.

The Tribunal found this rationale sound and reduced the costs assessed against the appellants, ordering the balance to be paid from the Municipality's general funds.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the proposed Eden Grove Municipal Drain.

The petitioners sought drainage of their flooded agricultural lands, while other landowners and the conservation authority raised concerns about downstream impacts, wetland preservation, and the project's feasibility.

The Tribunal found that the engineer lacked sufficient drainage expertise, the report was deficient and lacked adequate survey data, and the proposed works would not provide measurable relief or reclaim land for agriculture due to conservation restrictions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, rejected the engineer's report, and ordered the municipality to terminate the drainage project.

The appellants appealed Agricorp's decision denying a reseeding claim for 700 acres of soybeans planted in April 2005.

Agricorp argued the early planting did not constitute Good Farm Management Practice.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had extensive farming experience, planted during favourable soil conditions, and that Agricorp had unilaterally decided not to cover early-planted soybeans without notifying the insured.

The Tribunal concluded the appellants engaged in Good Farm Management Practice and ordered Agricorp to pay the $42,000 reseeding claim.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent bank's motion for summary judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge misapplied the test for summary judgment, improperly dismissed their claim that the minutes were altered without permission, and made implicit factual findings on conflicting evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial, as the documentation clearly showed the appellants agreed to a $100,000 settlement on a $125,000 loan, and bald assertions in a self-serving affidavit did not create a triable issue.

The applicants, dairy farmers, sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal confirming their violation of a milk marketing regulation and imposing penalties including quota and licence cancellations.

The applicants argued that an ongoing appeal stayed the regulation's operation.

The Divisional Court held that the stay did not suspend the validly enacted regulation and upheld the finding of liability.

However, the court found the penalty of licence cancellation and forced sale of remaining quota to be disproportionate and unjust, varying the penalty to only a partial cancellation of quota.

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought a motion to quash an appeal by the appellant from a Superior Court decision under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Society argued that because the Act states the judge's decision is 'final', no further appeal lies and the appellant must proceed by judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the word 'final' does not oust the appellate jurisdiction conferred by the Courts of Justice Act, and the decision is appealable as a final order of a Superior Court judge.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to admit five affidavits as evidence on the judicial review hearing, arguing they were necessary because no official transcript or audio recording of the tribunal proceedings existed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the delay was not deliberate or highly prejudicial.

The court granted the cross-motion, applying an exception to the general rule against admitting affidavits on judicial review, as the applicants would otherwise be unable to effectively challenge the tribunal's findings of fact and credibility.

The appellant blocked a channel between his property and the respondents', causing water to back up.

The trial judge found the channel was a natural watercourse, not merely surface water, and ordered the appellant to remove the barrier and pay damages.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in classifying the partially artificial channel as a natural watercourse and in finding it maintained its character downstream.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the channel was a well-defined natural watercourse where it was blocked.

The appellant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied his appeal for the continued use of 10 kg of milk quota on humanitarian grounds.

The appellant argued that new evidence regarding humanitarian relief given to other dairy farmers justified a review.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the evidence was not new and could have been obtained prior to the original hearing, and that it would not have changed the outcome.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to continue a loan of 10 kg of milk quota.

The appellant had suffered severe financial hardship due to alleged environmental contamination on his farm and sought the quota loan to sustain his operation pending the resolution of related litigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the DFO had already provided generous assistance and that it is not the explicit mandate or responsibility of the DFO to alleviate the financial difficulties of individual milk producers.

The appellant filed an appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding a crop insurance claim more than one year after filing the proof of loss form.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the statutory limitation period.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the limitation period is a substantive requirement, not a procedural one, and it has no statutory authority to extend or waive the deadline.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants, a group of dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding its over-quota milk payment policy.

In a pre-hearing motion, the appellants sought to have the Tribunal adopt the Rules of Civil Procedure to hear the appeal as a class action suit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it derives its jurisdiction solely from its enabling statutes and has no inherent or statutory jurisdiction to entertain class action suits.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) cancelling their milk production licenses and quotas.

The DFO had penalized the appellants for shipping milk outside the DFO system to a U.S. broker in violation of DFO Regulation 08/03 and for ignoring 'cease and desist' orders.

The Tribunal found that the appellants deliberately contravened the regulations and disregarded the orders.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the appellants' licenses but reduced the quota cancellation penalties, ordering the remaining quota to be sold on the exchange or forfeited.

The appellants, dairy farmers who had sold milk on the export market prior to the termination of the Export Contract Exchange, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to cancel their licences to market milk and cease pick-up of their milk.

The DFO had required all producers to hold a minimum of 5 kg of milk quota, which the appellants failed to acquire.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the DFO treated the appellants no differently than other producers holding less than 5 kg of quota, did not induce them to sell their quota, and that allowing them to ship over-quota milk to the DFO would result in a negative return.

The applicants, who were injured in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion for interim income replacement benefits after the insurer terminated their benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicants failed to establish the requisite urgency for an interim order, noting that they had previously consented to or requested adjournments of their hearing dates.

The motion for interim benefits was dismissed.

The appellant filed an appeal regarding a crop insurance claim more than a year after filing the proof of loss.

At a pre-hearing conference, the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as out of time and alternatively sought an indefinite adjournment because the appellant was under police investigation for fraud related to the claim.

The Tribunal adjourned the decision on the time limit extension to the full hearing panel and granted a postponement of the hearing pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

The appellant, International Dairy Direct - Broker Agent (IDDBA), appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to endorse IDDBA's proposed milk export plan.

The DFO had re-regulated the Ontario dairy industry to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against subsidized Canadian milk exports.

IDDBA sought approval for a plan to broker over-quota milk for export to the United States.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed plan was not clearly defined, lacked firm agreements, and would negatively impact Ontario's supply management system by encouraging over-quota production.

International Dairy Direct – Broker Agent (IDDBA) appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to endorse IDDBA's proposed milk export plan.

IDDBA sought to export over-quota milk to the United States in compliance with a World Trade Organization ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed plan would negatively impact Ontario's supply management system, was not clearly defined, and that the DFO's refusal was not prejudicial or inconsistent with its policies.

This tribunal decision arose from a pre-hearing conference in an appeal challenging licence cancellations, quota cancellations, sale requirements for remaining quota, and related production-credit consequences imposed by a dairy marketing body.

The parties identified the principal issues as whether the impugned regulation was stayed by prior appeals and whether the penalties and alleged representations concerning an undertaking were appropriate.

The tribunal recorded agreements respecting witness disclosure, will-say statements, and documentary production, and made a procedural order setting deadlines for disclosure and filing before the hearing.

The merits of the appeal were not decided.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP to deny them crop insurance coverage for five years and to require the repayment of previously settled claims due to alleged misrepresentation of crop yields.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal adopted the minutes of settlement, which rescinded the five-year ban and the repayment requirement, but rendered the appellants ineligible for crop insurance for the 2003 crop year.