Geoffrey Spurr

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of their production quota.

The appellants argued they were entitled to a medical exemption due to the severe and debilitating health issues of the principal operator, which forced their imminent exit from the industry.

The Tribunal found that the DFO's exemption request procedure was flawed and that the appellants were not given an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal granted the appeal on compassionate grounds, finding that the appellants' orderly exit was already in progress prior to the policy's implementation and that the DFO committed procedural errors.

The DFO was ordered to refund the $114,492.80 assessment.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission issued a decision significantly changing the powers of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board.

Several pork producers appealed the decision to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Commission brought a motion requesting the Tribunal refuse to hear the appeals under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, arguing the appellants lacked sufficient interest because they had not participated as full parties at the Commission hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the legislation does not require participation at the Commission level to qualify as an appellant.

The Tribunal granted party and intervenor status to various industry groups and adjourned the issue of the statutory stay to a continuation of the pre-hearing conference.

The appellants, organic turkey farmers, appealed a regulation by the Turkey Farmers of Ontario (TFO) requiring turkeys raised in non-confinement or open-air systems to be kept under a solid roof.

The appellants argued this would make organic certification impossible and financially unviable.

The TFO argued the regulation was necessary to prevent the spread of avian influenza from wild birds to domestic flocks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the TFO was justified in implementing the regulation as a preventative measure against avian influenza, and that the added cost to organic producers was outweighed by the safety benefits to the industry.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Turkey Farmers of Ontario imposing a condition on the transfer of turkey quota to him.

The condition required the appellant to acquire his own premises suitable for turkey production within five years.

The appellant argued that his 10% ownership of a numbered company that operated the farm satisfied the policy requirement for beneficial ownership.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not control the property and that the marketing board's policy requiring quota to be in the same name as the owner of the land was consistently applied to prevent speculation.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to uphold the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy without adequate notice or a phase-in period, effectively locking producers into the market and causing significant financial losses.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments to the appellants.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy immediately without adequate notice or consultation, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to manage their business affairs.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments collected from the appellants.

The appellant, a chicken processing company, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) imposing a supply utilization penalty of $9,548.16.

The penalty arose after the appellant acquired the entire calculated base of another processor without inquiring about potential liabilities.

The Tribunal upheld the CFO's decision, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and that the penalty was imposed in accordance with the CFO's governing laws and policies.

Ruedel Farms Inc. appealed a decision by the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers (OPVG) denying it a licence to grow carrots for processing in 2006.

Ruedel had hired Kejay, a company previously prohibited by the Tribunal from producing and marketing carrots for processing in 2006, to do custom work.

The Tribunal found that the arrangement effectively allowed Kejay to produce and market the carrots, violating the prior order.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence denial was upheld.

The applicants sought to appeal a decision of the Divisional Court dismissing their application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that under section 6(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the matter was properly decided by the Divisional Court and could not be reconstituted as a Rule 14 application before a Superior Court judge.

The appellant, Chicken Farmers of Ontario, appealed the dismissal of its motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the respondents from producing and marketing chicken without a quota.

The respondents argued they were exempt from the provincial quota system because they exported all their chicken to the United States.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by treating the matter as a private law dispute and failing to recognize the public interest in enforcing the regulatory scheme.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the integrity of the supply management system, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The appellant, a vegetable grower, appealed decisions of the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers (OPVG) imposing monetary penalties and license restrictions for marketing cull carrots outside the negotiated pricing agreement.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the processor failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement by not grading the carrots and basing the price on processor recovery.

The Tribunal upheld the monetary penalty and license restrictions relating to carrots, but rescinded the penalties restricting the appellant's licenses for other processing vegetables, finding them unfair and inappropriate.

The Wine Council of Ontario appealed decisions of the Grape Growers of Ontario to enact a regulation amending sugar grade schedules and to impose late harvest fees.

The Tribunal found that the GGO did not have the statutory authority to unilaterally set sugar schedules, as these schedules are integrally linked to the minimum price of grapes, which is the purview of the Negotiating Agency under Regulation 414 of the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The Tribunal rescinded the GGO's regulation.

Additionally, the Tribunal awarded nominal costs of $500 to the WCO because the GGO unreasonably delayed conceding that it lacked the authority to impose late payment penalties.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) regarding the calculation of his final milk cheque, a refund of monies from the Fund for Milk and Cream Producers, and a request for an allocation of 100 kg of quota due to alleged unfair treatment.

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction over the refund issue.

On the merits, the Tribunal found no evidence that the DFO applied its policies unfairly or inconsistently with respect to the appellant's milk cheque or quota allocation.

The appeal was denied.

The moving party, an agricultural marketing board, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that refused to grant an interim injunction against the responding chicken farmers.

The motions judge had characterized the dispute as private litigation, conflicting with another judge's decision in the same action that granted intervenor status based on substantial public interest.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, as the claim involved a legislated federal-provincial marketing system and public law principles under the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Georgian Bay Milk Company Ltd. appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying its request to extend the transition period for its non-quota holding producers to continue shipping export milk without quota.

The appellant sought an extension until a national dairy export system was established and BSE border closures were resolved.

The Tribunal denied the appeal for an indefinite extension, finding that a parallel milk marketing system would be detrimental to the quota-based system.

However, recognizing the impact of the BSE crisis, the Tribunal extended the transition period to July 31, 2004, after which the producers must comply with the minimum quota requirement.

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 appellant processors' association appealed a marketing board order increasing the live price of hen and broiler turkeys by 3.0 ¢/kg.

The appellant argued that declining feed and poult costs, along with market uncertainties, did not justify the price increase.

The respondent board contended that the increase was justified based on market factors, lower storage stocks, and the need to improve producer margins, which had been negative compared to processor margins.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding that the market factors supported the price increase and provided an opportunity for producers to recover from lower margins in previous years.

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.