Geoff Spurr

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) assessing an Excess Production Levy of $21,978.99 for exceeding its quota allotment.

The appellant argued the overproduction resulted from a clerical error by an inexperienced employee who relied on the wrong document to order chicks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the producer's failure to properly train and guide the employee did not constitute exceptional circumstances or force majeure warranting a waiver of the levy.

The appellant, a second-generation farmer, appealed a decision of the provincial chicken regulator denying his request for 2,040 units of chicken quota or an exemption from the quota regulation.

The appellant argued he was entitled to the quota based on his father's historical production during the 1964-1965 qualifying period.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the 46-year delay in applying for quota, failed to prove qualifying production, and was not himself a chicken producer during the qualifying period.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an exemption, holding that the unaffordability of quota is not a valid basis to grant an exemption that would undermine the supply management system.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request to transfer his remaining milk quota to his family's adjacent dairy farm corporation.

The appellant sought an exemption from DFO policy to allow the transfer and merger of the quota due to financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found that an exemption was warranted for the portion of the quota originally transferred from the father to the son in 1994, as there was a verbal agreement for its return.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the remaining quota purchased independently by the appellant, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exemption from the current DFO policy.

The appellant, an Ontario chicken producer, appealed decisions of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) declining his request to revoke a regulation and policy amendment that placed a moratorium on increasing processing contracts with Quebec processors.

The appellant argued the amendments were ultra vires as they controlled interprovincial trade.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pith and substance of the impugned instruments was the regulation of chicken marketing transactions within Ontario, which falls squarely within the CFO's delegated authority under the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed certain 2005 and 2009 policies of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the portion of the appeal relating to the 2005 policies, arguing the appellant had known of them for more than a year and was not aggrieved by them.

The Tribunal granted the motion, exercising its discretion under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to refuse to hear the appeal of the 2005 policies.

The Tribunal noted the policies were developed through a negotiated process, the industry had relied on them for four years, and the requested change to open contracting would fundamentally alter the assurance of supply system.

The appellant, a chicken producer, brought a motion for a stay of Chicken Farmers of Ontario Regulation 2274-2009 and Policy 175-2009 pending his appeal.

The regulation imposed a moratorium on new processing contracts with out-of-province processors.

The appellant argued his circumstances had changed because his Ontario processor cancelled his contract, and he wished to consolidate production with his Quebec processor.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that a stay is intended to preserve the status quo, which had not changed since the appellant would still sell 80% of his production to an Ontario processor and 20% to a Quebec processor.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction over the policy as the appellant had not first sought an exemption from the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) declining his request to revoke CFO Regulation 2274-2009.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant raised broader policy issues regarding quota allocation and assurance of supply, as well as a constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal held that the broader policy issues had not been considered by the CFO at first instance.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal held in abeyance to allow the appellant to apply to the CFO for a hearing on the broader policy issues under section 17(1) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, and to provide proper notice of any constitutional question.

The appellant, a chicken farmer, appealed a Chicken Farmers of Ontario regulation that imposed a moratorium on approving marketing contracts with out-of-province processors.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant argued that his appeal automatically stayed the regulation for all farmers under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal held that while an appeal operates as a stay 'in the matter' between the parties, it does not automatically suspend validly enacted legislation for everyone.

Since the appellant conceded an individual exemption would not benefit him, the Tribunal ordered that the regulation was not stayed pending the appeal.

The appellant turkey producers appealed a decision of the Turkey Farmers of Ontario denying their request to revise or revoke an over marketing penalty of $13,174.85.

The penalty was imposed because the appellants failed to obtain the required lease and approval to produce turkeys on a specific property, resulting in an over marketing of quota.

The Tribunal found that the appellants were aware of the lease requirement and were responsible for the failure to have it in place.

The appeal was denied and the penalty was upheld.

The appellant, a chicken farmer, appealed a regulation passed by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario that imposed a moratorium on approving marketing contracts with out-of-province processors.

The appellant requested a pre-hearing conference to determine whether his appeal automatically stayed the regulation.

The Tribunal held that while the appeal operates as a stay of the matter under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, it does not automatically suspend validly enacted legislation.

Since the appellant conceded an individual exemption would not benefit him, the Tribunal declined to limit or define the scope of the stay and ordered the exchange of issues statements.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision, alleging that one of the panel members had a conflict of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The member, an active dairy farmer whose farm was subject to DFO regulatory action, failed to disclose his status until after the hearing concluded.

The Tribunal found that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO breached the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new hearing ordered.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting the Tribunal review and set aside its previous decision regarding an appeal by John and Susanna Cayer.

The DFO argued that one of the panel members, an active dairy farmer with a regulatory history with the DFO, had a conflict of interest and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by failing to disclose his status at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO violated the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the public's confidence in the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new panel was assigned to rehear the matter.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision upholding somatic cell count (SCC) penalties imposed on their milk production for June, July, and August 2006.

They alleged that the official milk samples had been tampered with or improperly tested, and presented independent test results that differed from the official results.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of tampering or testing inaccuracies, noting that the independent samples had been frozen, which could alter SCC results.

The appeal was dismissed and the official SCC test results were confirmed.

The appellants, a group of dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding its over-quota milk payment policy.

In a pre-hearing motion, the appellants sought to have the Tribunal adopt the Rules of Civil Procedure to hear the appeal as a class action suit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it derives its jurisdiction solely from its enabling statutes and has no inherent or statutory jurisdiction to entertain class action suits.

The appellants brought a motion during a pre-hearing teleconference for an order compelling the respondent to make full disclosure of relevant materials and for an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The respondent confirmed it had complied with a previous disclosure order and that no further documents existed.

The appellants' representative acknowledged satisfaction with the disclosure, attributing the motion to a misunderstanding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for further disclosure and adjournment, ordering the appellants to submit their required materials and directing the respondent's witness to swear an affidavit confirming no further materials existed.

The Wine Council of Ontario and several winery growers appealed decisions of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board regarding substantial increases in license fees for the 2001 vintage year.

The appellants sought the release of the Board's budget, a reversal of the fee increases, and the withdrawal of late payment penalties and interest on withheld fees.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted within its authority to increase fees and was not obligated to release its confidential budget.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal regarding penalties, ordering that the 5% penalty be applied to outstanding fees but staying the 2% monthly interest until April 15, 2002.

Sunnybrook Farms appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding Sunnybrook's entitlement to a periodic allocation base of 100,000 kilograms of chicken for slaughter.

Sunnybrook argued it had never relinquished its 100,000 kg base allocation established under the 1996 system, while the CFO contended the request was untimely under the 1998 system.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that the definition of supply in the 1996 policy was ambiguous and that Sunnybrook, as a non-member of processor organizations, relied on the CFO to represent its interests.

The Tribunal ordered the CFO to hold a hearing into Sunnybrook's entitlement.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding six somatic cell count (SCC) test results in the penalty range, which ultimately led to their farm being shut off from shipping milk.

The appellants argued that the official test results were inaccurate and inconsistent with independent tests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the high SCC scores were caused by a high incidence of Staph. aureus mastitis in the herd, combined with less than adequate management by the producers.

The Tribunal found no evidence of anomalies in the standard procedures used for sampling and testing the milk.

The appellants, Ontario-based dairy farmers who previously shipped milk to the Quebec market, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for compensation for losses incurred when transferring their quota to the Ontario market.

The appellants argued that the DFO's policy requiring them to transfer all their Quebec quota to Ontario, rather than selling it at a higher price in Quebec and buying cheaper Ontario quota, was unfairly administered.

The Tribunal found that the appellants transferred their quota for their own business reasons and that there was no evidence of special circumstances warranting an exemption to the DFO's policy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) penalizing him for producing and marketing chicken without quota and failing to report production.

The appellant had an arrangement with a local processor where he exchanged live chickens for processed meat, which he used for personal consumption, family weddings, and charitable donations.

The Tribunal found that the chicken used for personal consumption was exempt from reporting.

However, the chicken used for family weddings and charitable donations constituted unreported marketing.

Recognizing the charitable nature of some donations as a mitigating factor, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and reduced the quota reduction penalty.