Donald R. Good

The appellant appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario refusing to change its plan for complying with a WTO ruling on milk export practices.

The respondent brought a motion to limit the scope of the automatic stay of its decision, and the appellant requested an adjournment of the hearing.

On consent of both parties, the Tribunal ordered that the automatic stay be suspended as it affects these parties and granted the adjournment.

The applicant, who resides adjacent to the respondent's dairy farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of odours and flies emanating from a barnyard paddock used for pasturing and feeding cattle.

The Board found that while the applicant was directly affected by some odour and flies, the respondent's farm operations were consistent with normal farm practices for a dairy farm in a rural area.

The Board accepted evidence from neighbours that the odours and flies were not significant and noted that garbage on the applicant's own property likely contributed to the issue.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP regarding a crop insurance claim for their 2000 corn crop.

The appeal was filed after the one-year limitation period prescribed by regulation.

AGRICORP argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

The Tribunal found that it had the administrative mandate to grant extensions in appropriate circumstances.

Given that the appellants had actively pursued their claim through a review committee, were not warned of the impending deadline, and AGRICORP suffered no prejudice, the Tribunal extended the time for filing the appeal.

The appellant farmer appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay the respondent for soybean seed, chemicals, and spraying services, and dismissing his counterclaim for crop losses.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding he authorized a herbicide substitution, in enforcing an allegedly illegal contract for an unregistered pesticide combination, and in calculating the quantity of soybeans ordered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that enforcing the contract for the unregistered pesticide combination was not contrary to public policy.

The appellant appealed a conviction involving a forged endorsement on a cheque.

The central issue was whether the named payee was a non-existent entity or merely a misdescription.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of fact that it was a misdescription, meaning the cheque was not payable to bearer under the Bills of Exchange Act.

Consequently, the forged endorsement was a material addition to a genuine document, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants sued the provincial Crown for environmental damage caused by waste asphalt buried on their farm during highway reconstruction in the 1960s.

The respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the six-month limitation period in s. 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the disposal of waste asphalt on private land was an operational decision of a predominantly private character, not an act done in pursuance of a public duty.

Therefore, the usual six-year limitation period applied, and the action was not statute-barred.

Neighbouring property owners sued mushroom farmers in nuisance for severe odours from composting operations and obtained damages at trial.

On appeal, the court held that the Superior Court retained jurisdiction to determine whether the statutory immunity for a normal farm practice applied, but that absent special circumstances such questions should generally be left first to the specialized board.

The majority held that the statutory definition of normal farm practice contains a qualitative and site-specific evaluative element, permitting consideration of the intensity of the disturbance and the surrounding circumstances, including the prior character of the area.

The appeal was dismissed and the nuisance damages award was upheld.

The appellant producer appealed a decision not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a sample of milk taken from his farm, which resulted in a penalty and disposal costs.

The milk was found to contain an unprecedented level of penicillin, far exceeding what could result from milking treated cows.

The Tribunal found that the contamination was the result of third-party action and that the problem could not reasonably have originated from the producer's farming operations.

The appeal was granted, the test result was removed from the record, and the producer was relieved of the penalty and disposal costs.

The respondent Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, brought a preliminary motion requesting that the Tribunal refuse to hear the appellants' appeal on the basis that it was frivolous.

The appellants had appealed decisions not to cancel freezing point test results and resulting penalties.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions and concluded that a hearing should be convened and that mediation was not within its mandate.

The preliminary request to refuse to hear the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of AgriCorp concerning a crop insurance claim for corn.

As a preliminary matter, the parties asked the Tribunal to rule on whether AgriCorp had the legal authority to revise a final acreage report after it had been filed and the premium paid.

The Tribunal ruled that under Regulation 222, AgriCorp has a reasonable period of time to review and revise the final acreage report, subject to the insured's right to object.

Following this ruling, the appellants withdrew the balance of their appeal.

Several landowners appealed from the engineer's report on the St. Michaels-Donohue Municipal Drain.

Following an interim order, the township and the engineer found a solution acceptable to the affected landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the township to refer the report back to the engineer for modification incorporating the agreed-upon solution and amended assessment schedule, and outlined the procedure for circulating the modified report and handling any subsequent objections.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario (AgriCorp) denying his 1995 crop insurance claims for soybeans and corn.

AgriCorp alleged the appellant understated his soybean yield and attempted to defraud the fund by claiming recent sales were from carryover beans stored from previous years.

The Tribunal found that AgriCorp failed to meet the higher onus of proving fraud or dishonesty, noting the appellant's explanations were reasonable and not substantially contradicted.

The Tribunal ordered AgriCorp to process the appellant's 1995 claims as submitted.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario denying his claim for 94 acres of unharvested coloured beans.

The appellant argued the failure to harvest was due to the insured peril of excess moisture, while the respondent argued it was due to poor management and delayed notice.

The Tribunal found that the loss was caused by a combination of factors, attributing 50% to the insured perils of spring drought and fall excess moisture, and 50% to uninsured perils including poor management practices.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to allow a loss of 34,269.28 lbs, applying a late harvest reduction.

Several landowners appealed from the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report on a municipal drain.

At the hearing, an appellant proposed an alternative open ditch route that would be cheaper and address specific flooding concerns.

The Tribunal found the proposal warranted further investigation and issued interim directions requiring the engineer and affected owners to meet, outline the alternative work, and attempt to reach a written agreement by a specified date before a final decision is made.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for proposed work on the South Vance Drain.

The engineer's report proposed replacing a culvert, relocating the appellant's access culvert, and replacing an open ditch with a tile drain.

During the hearing, it became apparent that none of the assessed ratepayers, including the appellant, wanted the work on the appellant's land.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer to delete all work except the culvert replacement for another ratepayer, and adjusted the assessment for that culvert.

The appellant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs for creating confusion regarding the requested work.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Brick Road Drain.

The appellant experienced flooding on his property after a heavy rainstorm but admitted he was unsure if the issue was design or construction.

The respondent's engineer and drainage superintendent testified the drain was constructed to specifications.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it frivolous as the appellant provided no evidence that the construction failed to meet specifications, and ordered the appellant to pay $1,000 in costs.

The applicant, a neighbouring property owner, brought an application under the Farm Practices Protection Act complaining of dust and noise from the respondent's grain handling and storage operation.

The Board found that while the noise level was reasonable, the quantity and type of dust emitted, specifically 'red dog', constituted an unacceptable nuisance.

The Board determined that several of the respondent's practices, including the lack of a containment area for dust and the failure to use flexible sleeves on augers and downspouts, did not represent normal farm practices given the unusually close proximity of the operation to the applicant's residence.

The Board ordered the respondent to undertake remedial work to reduce dust emissions.