Geoffrey P. Spurr

The Appellants, dairy farmers whose farm was placed in receivership, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying exemptions to quota policies that would allow the farm to be sold as an ongoing operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that the Appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter.

The Tribunal held that the Receiver had sole authority over the farm assets and the decision to appeal, and the Appellants could not establish a sufficient financial or legal interest to pursue the appeal in their personal capacity.

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.

The appellants brought a preliminary motion requesting the Tribunal determine the scope of its jurisdiction to provide relief under the Ontario Human Rights Code prior to a full hearing, and seeking an order for disclosure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it could not determine its jurisdiction without a full evidentiary hearing to establish the facts of the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the disclosure request, characterizing it as a fishing expedition lacking a proper evidentiary basis.

The appellant, an Alberta sheep farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Farmers (OSF) regarding the collection of licence fees on lambs sold into Ontario.

The Tribunal found the appellant lacked standing on several issues but had standing to challenge the application of the licencing regime to non-resident producers.

The Tribunal interpreted the General Regulations and found they did not clearly exempt non-resident producers from paying licence fees, exceeding OSF's authority.

The Tribunal ordered OSF to amend its regulations to explicitly state that no licence fee shall be charged to non-resident producers and to issue a directive stopping such deductions.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a reconsideration decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to replace their assigned milk transporter.

The dispute arose after an altercation between the appellant and a bulk tank milk grader, which led to rejected milk pickups and the appellant signing an undertaking.

Although the specific grader was permanently removed from the appellants' route prior to the hearing, the appellants continued to seek a new transporter.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the transporter should be replaced, noting the DFO's responsibility to minimize transportation costs province-wide.

The Appellants brought a motion for the production of documents, including a contract between the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and a milk transporter, GPS records, correspondence, and records of a third party's expulsion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were either irrelevant to the remaining issues in the appeal or constituted a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal also noted that some requests had been rescinded in a previous motion.

The appellants, licensed milk producers, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for relief following an altercation with a milk transport driver.

The DFO brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellants' harassment complaint against the driver and transport company, as well as their claim for monetary compensation for dumped milk.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the appellants' requests to permanently remove the driver from their route and to replace the transport company, finding an insufficient evidentiary record to determine if those issues were moot or trivial.

The motion was granted in part, with two issues proceeding to a full hearing.

The self-represented appellants brought a motion for the production of documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion because the appellants failed to provide affidavit evidence, as required by Rule 30.03(v) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, to establish the factual context and relevancy of the requested documents.

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the appellants to bring a new motion in compliance with the rules.

The appellants, out-of-province sheep producers, brought a motion for disclosure of documents from the Ontario Sheep Farmers regarding the collection of license fees and the granting of exemptions to out-of-province producers.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the disclosure of documents from 2017 onwards relating to exemptions granted to out-of-province producers, other provincial organizations, and Ontario producers, finding them arguably relevant to the appellants' claims of arbitrary and discriminatory application of the exemption policy.

The Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency brought a preliminary motion to dismiss an appeal by two non-resident sheep producers regarding the collection of license fees.

The Agency argued the producers lacked a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the producers were aggrieved persons who were required to pay fees and thus had a sufficient interest to be entitled to a hearing on the merits.

The Canadian Sheep Federation and three provincial sheep organizations brought a motion for participant status in an appeal challenging the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency's license fee and exemption policy.

The moving parties argued the policy acts as an inter-provincial trade barrier affecting out-of-province producers.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Sheep Federation, finding it could provide useful contextual and historical evidence without causing injustice to the respondent.

The motions by the three provincial organizations were dismissed, as they are members of the Canadian Sheep Federation and will have a voice through that organization.

The appellant, representing licensed chicken processors, appealed a reconsideration decision of the respondent local board regarding the collection of data for the Cost of Production Formula used to set minimum live chicken prices.

The appellant requested that the respondent collect specific data on third-party labour costs, feed cost discounts, and government payments in its Operating Costs Survey, which the respondent refused.

The Tribunal held a bifurcated hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the respondent's decision was discretionary and not mandated by legislation, and because the pricing of chicken is determined by a negotiating agency, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal, which summarily dismissed its appeal from a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO).

The Tribunal had found it lacked jurisdiction to order the EFO to implement a direct marketing system without a prior investigation or decision by the EFO, and alternatively dismissed the appeal as vexatious and in bad faith.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal cannot direct the EFO to exercise discretionary powers without a substantive basis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants challenged an administrative decision finding that they illegally transported milk between two separately licensed dairy facilities operating on the same property and imposing $10,000 in penalties.

The Tribunal held a de novo hearing and applied the civil standard of proof, requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence because of the serious licensing consequences.

It found the respondent's case was entirely circumstantial and did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that milk had been moved contrary to the regulation.

The tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation for unusual production patterns and found the trailer-mounted tank evidence inconsistent with clandestine milk transfer.

The decision and penalties were set aside, and any deducted penalties were ordered credited back.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a reconsideration decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission regarding a new Cost of Production formula.

The appellant sought six amendments to the formula, including changes to the prime rate calculation, exclusion of depreciation from working capital, adjustments to farm labour benefit and wage rates, use of a real rate of return, and addition of a risk premium.

After hearing extensive expert testimony from all parties, the Tribunal found the expert evidence presented by the respondent and third party to be more reliable and acceptable on all six issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an inactive egg grading station and quota holder, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) refusing to enact a 'directed marketing' policy that would require producers to market eggs to it.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had standing as an aggrieved person, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order EFO to exercise its discretionary delegated powers to create such a policy.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was vexatious and brought in bad faith, as it was pursued concurrently with civil litigation raising similar issues and alongside three other withdrawn appeals.

The appeal was dismissed without a hearing, and costs of $8,842.25 were awarded to the respondent.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties made oral submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the appeal should be dismissed before a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow, and set a schedule for written submissions on costs.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate issues regarding the Early Egg Removal Program and Early Fowl Removal Program.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal because the appellant requested an order directed to it.

The motion was granted, and the OFPMC was granted participant status.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party, and consequently qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party and therefore qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.