Geoffrey P. Spurr

The appellants appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario denying a request to reverse the cancellation of Quota Session QT-3-2018.

After hearing the evidence of the appellants, their counsel advised the Tribunal that all appellants wished to withdraw their appeals.

The appeals were withdrawn and no costs were sought.

The appellant, Association of Ontario Chicken Processors, brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission, to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for the annual hatching egg producer hours considered in the cost of production formula.

The respondent argued the issue of all production hours was not properly before the Tribunal and that the motion was an improper attempt to request new evidence.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to order particulars related to management labour hours, which were properly under appeal, but not production labour hours.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the respondent to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for management hours.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed its request for an increase in its chicken processing quota.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the date of rebasing was supported by evidence and reasonable.

The Court also held that the applicant could not rely on a contract it had expressly abandoned before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was not required to provide reasons for declining to depart from its usual policies.

Following the resolution of an application challenging a regulation after the respondents agreed to amend it, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the applicants.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the litigation involved costs thrown away and abusive conduct by the respondents.

The court rejected both arguments, holding the matter resembled a typical settlement scenario and that the respondents had not acted unreasonably.

The court also rejected requests to exclude negotiation time and expert-related costs from the applicants’ bill of costs, but found the total amount claimed excessive.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant farm corporation requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied its request for an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's 15% quota transfer assessment.

The appellant had sold its quota after one of its joint operators was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made material errors of law and fact by misapplying previous exemption cases and by not hearing certain medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no material error of law or fact that would likely have led to a different decision.

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 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 applicants, a group of dairy farmers who export their milk, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Minister had rescinded a Tribunal order that would have allowed the applicants to export milk without holding provincial quota.

The applicants challenged the Minister's decision on administrative law grounds, including bias and inadequate reasons, and argued that the provincial milk marketing scheme was an ultra vires attempt to regulate international trade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the provincial scheme was a valid regulation of intraprovincial trade that only incidentally affected exports, and that the Minister's decision was not patently unreasonable, biased, or procedurally unfair.

The Director of Regulatory Compliance brought a motion to lift a statutory stay that took effect when the respondent appealed a decision shutting him off from the milk market for unsanitary practices.

The Tribunal applied the RJR MacDonald test and found that the risk to public health from unsanitary milk production outweighed the financial harm to the respondent.

The motion was granted and the stay was lifted pending the appeal hearing.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a pre-hearing motion to dismiss an appeal by Georgian Bay Milk Company (GBMC) regarding the revocation of milk producer licences and the denial of an extension to a transition period.

The DFO argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the appeal was frivolous, and GBMC was estopped due to a pending judicial review.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the DFO's decision, the appeal was not frivolous given the impact on producers' livelihoods, and the issues before the Divisional Court were substantially different.

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 Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a pre-hearing motion to limit or define the scope of a stay resulting from an appeal by Georgian Bay Milk Company (GBMC).

GBMC brought a motion to require DFO to produce all relevant documents.

Canada Milk Inc. also requested to be added as a party.

The Tribunal denied Canada Milk Inc.'s request for party status, finding insufficient commonality with GBMC.

The Tribunal dismissed DFO's motion to limit the stay, finding that lifting it would cause irreparable harm to GBMC before the appeal could be heard on its merits.

The Tribunal ordered DFO to produce the requested documents and set a schedule for the exchange of materials.

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.