Geoffrey Spurr

The appellant, Georgian Bay Milk Company, appealed decisions by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission that effectively shut down its export milk business following a WTO ruling against Canada's commercial export milk mechanism.

The Tribunal found that the WTO did not rule on whether non-quota holders were subsidized and ordered the DFO and OFPMC to submit the appellant's proposed unsubsidized export milk program to the federal government for review.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant an interim exemption to continue operating and allowed its milk to be transported in segregated trucks.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal establishing a pricing formula for live chickens in Ontario and ordering the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend its regulations to implement the formula.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

The court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Farm Products Marketing Act to establish the pricing formula, fix the starting price, and direct the Commission to amend its regulations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying her request for a reduction in a monetary penalty of $2,642.53 assessed for over-marketing chicken.

The appellant argued that the processor was partially responsible for the over-production and should share the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate private contractual disputes between producers and processors, and noting that the appellant agreed the penalty amount itself was fair.

The appellant processor sought to appeal an order of the respondent board regarding a dockage dispute over potato shipments.

The appeal was filed more than one year after the appellant had knowledge of the order.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference to determine whether to exercise its discretion under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to hear the appeal despite the delay.

The Tribunal declined to hear the appeal, finding that the appellant had engaged in self-help by withholding funds rather than utilizing the regulated marketing system's dispute resolution mechanisms in a timely manner.

Sunnybrook Farms brought a preliminary motion seeking a stay of enforcement actions by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) regarding its chicken slaughter quota, and an order compelling the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors to produce documents.

During the pre-hearing conference, Sunnybrook Farms withdrew its motion after reaching an agreement with the CFO.

The Tribunal issued an order reflecting the parties' agreement, limiting the CFO's enforcement remedies to the forfeiture of an $8,000 letter of credit for non-compliance in specific quota periods pending the final outcome of the appeal.

The appellant, Van Moorsel Farms Ltd., appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to reverse a transfer of 10,008 units of basic quota to a purchaser and refusing to allocate an additional 6,500 units of basic quota to the appellant.

The appellant argued that because it had not been fully paid for the quota at the time the CFO announced a new quota conversion policy, it retained property rights in the quota and was entitled to the new allocation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that quota is a revocable license, not personal property, and that the appellant had initiated the transfer before the policy freeze date, rendering it ineligible for the new allocation.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) cancelling 1,782 units of basic quota as a penalty for producing and marketing unreported chicken.

The appellant argued the penalty was disproportionately severe compared to other producers who received temporary reductions in future production rather than permanent quota cancellation.

The Tribunal found the penalty was appropriate and consistent with the CFO's treatment of producers who required a full investigation rather than signing an agreed statement of facts.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, noting it was the appellant's second offence and emphasizing the need for strong deterrence to protect the integrity of the supply management system.

In a preliminary decision regarding an appeal of somatic cell count test results under the Ontario Raw Milk Quality Program, the appellants requested permission to have witnesses testify via videoconference.

The respondent objected and requested disclosure of witness names.

The appellants also sought disclosure of individual laboratory test results rather than summaries.

The Tribunal granted the request for videoconferencing at the appellants' expense, ordered both parties to disclose anticipated witness names, and directed the respondent to endeavor to produce the requested individual test results.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying their requests for allocations of basic chicken quota at no cost.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that the appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter and that part of the appeal related to matters known for more than one year.

The Tribunal granted the CFO's motion, finding that the appellants, who were not registered chicken producers, lacked sufficient interest to challenge the quota allocation policy, and that the appeal regarding the 1986 quota lottery was out of time.

The appellants, Alexander and Mary Cumming, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for an Ontario milk producer licence without transferring their Quebec quota to Ontario.

The appellants argued that the DFO policy requiring the transfer of Quebec quota was discriminatory and invalid.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had the authority to maintain the policy and that there were no special circumstances warranting an exemption for the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario from a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal would proceed as a hearing de novo and consolidated several related appeals.

The order outlined the issues to be addressed, including total Ontario domestic supply determination, individual processor allocation, category requirements, price determination, and export policy.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for document disclosure and scheduled the hearing dates.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed a decision by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board to increase the live price of all categories of turkey by 2.0 cents per kilogram.

The Board argued the increase was necessary to offset rising heating and feed costs for producers.

The processors argued that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the turkeys being marketed for the Christmas season, and that processors could not pass on the price increase because wholesale prices were already established.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, directing the Board to rescind the price increase and reinstate the previous pricing order, finding that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the product being marketed and that processors had little opportunity to recover the increased costs.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Chicken Farmers of Ontario decision on quota allocation, an interested party applied for party status, and the appellant applied for an order for her examination for discovery.

The Tribunal granted party status, noting all parties acknowledged her interest in the matter.

The Tribunal denied the application for examination for discovery, stating such orders should only be issued under extraordinary circumstances, which were not present.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying a request for an exemption from the policy on the minimum amount of quota that may be fixed and allotted to a premises.

The appellant sought to produce its crop quota in two separate existing barns rather than build an extension to its main barn to accommodate a newly allotted basic quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO's minimum quota policy of 15,000 units per registered premises was applied fairly and consistently, and granting an exemption would be unfair to other producers who complied with the policy.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant an extension of time to complete the required building expansion.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario finding that he had violated marketing regulations by producing and marketing 139,010 kilograms of unreported chicken.

The Board had assessed license fees and levies and cancelled all of his basic production quota.

The Tribunal found clear evidence that the appellant participated in a scheme to shave weights and market unreported chicken.

However, noting this was a first offence, the Tribunal found the penalty too severe and reduced it to a cancellation of 50% of the appellant's basic quota units, while upholding the assessment of $61,391.87 in fees and levies.

The appellant, a licensed chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario imposing a penalty of a 10,000-kilogram quota reduction for failing to report 2,000 kilograms of chicken production.

The appellant admitted to the unreported marketing but argued the penalty was too severe given his difficulties with the processor.

The Tribunal found that while illegal production is a serious breach, the penalty was severe and likely an act of omission caused by frustration rather than a deliberate attempt to circumvent regulations.

The Tribunal denied the appeal but adjusted the penalty to a 6,000-kilogram quota reduction, representing three times the unreported amount, consistent with first-offence penalties.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed the pricing orders set by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board.

During the hearing, the Board introduced new evidence regarding export credits.

The appellant requested an adjournment to respond to this new information.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, ending the hearing and directing the parties to conduct a new pricing meeting to consider the matter again, while keeping the previous pricing order in effect.

The appellant processors' committee appealed a pricing order by the respondent marketing board that raised or maintained the live price of turkeys.

The appellant argued that high storage stocks, reduced processor margins, and changes in retail purchasing practices necessitated a price reduction.

The respondent argued that the price increase was justified by higher feed costs and positive market indicators.

The Tribunal found that while market indicators were beginning to show positive signs, they were not sufficient to support a price increase given the processors' reduced margins.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, ordering a 2.0 cent reduction in the price of all categories of turkey for a specified period.

The appellant, an apple grower, appealed a decision of the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission denying his request for a list of the names and addresses of all registered apple growers.

The appellant sought the list to facilitate open communication among growers.

The Commission refused to release the list but offered to conduct a supervised mailing on the appellant's behalf.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant could achieve his communication goals within the Commission's current policies and that the Commission's policy of protecting grower information was reasonable.