Geoffrey Spurr

The appellants appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) removing them from the New Producer Program (NPP) queue.

The DFO determined the appellants were ineligible because the husband held voting shares in his parents' dairy corporation, making him an existing producer under the Quota Policy.

The appellants argued the shareholding was minimal and they made an honest mistake on the application.

The Tribunal found the husband was a producer under the policy and that the appellants' mistake did not constitute unique or exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to award damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants brought a motion seeking disclosure of documents and the consolidation of three separate appeals against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Director of Regulatory Compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the requested board minutes and communications, subject to claims of privilege.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to consolidate the appeals, noting that section 9.1(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act requires the consent of all parties to consolidate or hear proceedings together, which was not provided.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard consecutively by the same panel.

The appellants, who are pullet and egg producers, appealed decisions of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding policies and procedures for leasing pullet quota.

The appellants challenged the May 2018 and January 2019 Pullet Leasing Pool Policies, arguing they were adopted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and penalized new farmers.

The Tribunal found that EFO acted transparently, consulted with producers, and implemented the policies within its mandate to manage the quota system efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the policies were not punitive but served to fulfill the intended goals of the quota system.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his licence to produce tobacco for the 2014 crop year and retaining the proceeds from the sale of seized unlabelled tobacco.

The appellant admitted to violating the General Regulations by failing to properly label and record tobacco bales.

The Tribunal found that while the seizure and sale of the tobacco (resulting in a $46,000 loss) was an appropriate penalty, the refusal to issue a licence for the 2014 growing season was too severe given the appellant's unblemished record and admission of guilt.

The appeal was partially granted, and the appellant was issued a licence subject to conditions regarding labelling and reporting.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer with a 40-year unblemished record, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that denied his 2014 licence to produce tobacco.

The Board had found that the appellant contravened the General Regulations by failing to immediately affix stickers to bales of tobacco, resulting in the seizure and sale of the unlabelled bales.

The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant violated the regulations and found the seizure of the tobacco to be an appropriate penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's unblemished record and cooperation, the Tribunal found the refusal to issue a 2014 licence to be too severe and ordered that the licence be granted.

The appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The Board denied the application on the basis that the appellant's son, who had a history of regulatory contraventions, was the de facto producer standing behind the application.

The Tribunal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board was entitled to treat the appellant and her son as one unit for the purpose of assessing the application, and that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory plan to ensure her son would not be involved in the tobacco production.

The appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The appellant sought an expedited decision so she could plant tobacco in time for the 2012 crop year.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, issuing its decision without reasons to accommodate the planting schedule, with full written reasons to follow.

The appellant, a chicken producer, experienced high bird mortality due to extreme weather conditions, resulting in an undermarketing of 12,783 kgs. of chicken.

Under the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's Quota Policy 170-2005, he was permitted to re-grow up to 10% of his quota allocation (6,684 kgs.).

He appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal seeking relief to re-grow the remaining 6,099 kgs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the undermarketing policy was a fault-free entitlement designed to address factors like weather, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the weather event was truly unique and exceptional to warrant an exemption beyond the policy.

The appellant corporation appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its dairy quota.

The appellant argued that the unexpected terminal illness and death of one of the farm's two primary operators constituted special circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal found that while the circumstances were tragic, the surviving operator was physically capable of continuing the operation and the decision to exit the industry was a personal choice rather than an absolute necessity.

The Tribunal concluded that granting an exemption for a personal decision to exit the industry would improperly expand the special circumstances policy, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a family farming corporation, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued for an exemption based on financial hardship and the primary operator's medical condition (foot arthritis) which prevented him from milking cows.

The Tribunal found that the operator's medical condition was not sufficiently special or extraordinary to warrant an exemption, noting he continued to actively farm in cash cropping and the DFO's established policy against medical exemptions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued the sale was forced due to the primary operator's back condition.

The Tribunal found that the operator's condition did not constitute a unique or extraordinary circumstance warranting special consideration, especially since he continued to work as a crop farmer.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 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 appellants, an unincorporated association of dairy producers and three individuals, brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of their appeal of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's 2009 quota policies.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and sought costs, arguing the appellants had failed to comply with a prior procedural order.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment pending the release of a decision in a related appeal concerning the 2006 policies, finding that the outcome of that appeal could significantly impact the present matter.

However, the Tribunal imposed strict conditions on the appellants to proceed promptly once the 2006 decision is released.

The Tribunal declined to award costs against the appellants, noting that costs are rarely awarded in public administrative hearings and the respondent's preparation efforts would not be wasted.

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.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal considered motions to lift, limit, or define the scope of a statutory stay of a decision by the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission regarding the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board.

The Commission's decision significantly changed the mandate of Ontario Pork from single desk marketing to a more open market.

The Tribunal applied the RJR MacDonald test, adapted for a statutory stay, and found no irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay remained in place.

The Tribunal declined to lift the stay but defined its scope, allowing certain preparatory work and pilot projects to continue while staying the implementation of the open market structure pending the appeal.

Sure Fresh Foods Inc. appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to review and adjust a levy imposed by the Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC) for failing to meet market development commitments.

The CFO raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, jurisdiction, and collateral attack.

The Tribunal found the appeal was timely and that it had jurisdiction to review CFO decisions, but concluded the appeal was an impermissible collateral attack on the CFC's levy decision, which had already been unsuccessfully appealed to the National Farm Products Council.

The appeal was dismissed.