Geoff Spurr

The appellant association of milk transporters appealed a decision by the respondent dairy board granting a 2% increase in the labour component of the Transport Rate Formula for 2000, seeking a 3% increase instead.

The appellant argued that milk truck drivers perform specialized duties as bulk tank milk graders and that a 3% increase was necessary to remain competitive with industry-wide wage growth.

The respondent contended that the 2% increase was equitable as it matched the increase given to its own staff.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that current market factors and industry wage settlements supported a 3% increase.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission regarding the allocation of live chicken to processors.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant requested that the hearing be bifurcated to deal with three preliminary jurisdictional issues—lack of notice, exceeding jurisdiction, and bias—before proceeding to the substantive merits.

Despite concerns from some participants about delay and duplication, the Tribunal ordered that the jurisdictional issues be heard first as questions of law, reserving the right to join them with the substantive hearing if material evidence becomes controversial.

The appellant producer appealed a decision not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a sample of milk taken from his farm, which resulted in a penalty and disposal costs.

The milk was found to contain an unprecedented level of penicillin, far exceeding what could result from milking treated cows.

The Tribunal found that the contamination was the result of third-party action and that the problem could not reasonably have originated from the producer's farming operations.

The appeal was granted, the test result was removed from the record, and the producer was relieved of the penalty and disposal costs.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding the cancellation of his processor's live chicken supply and the resulting cancellation of his production contracts.

The appellant argued he was aggrieved because he would have difficulty finding a new processor for his heavy roaster chickens in future quota periods.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO was within its statutory rights to deny a hearing and had already provided sufficient accommodation by allowing the appellant to adjust his production and marketing for the immediate quota period.

A pre-hearing conference was held to set out procedures for an appeal by 652024 Ontario Inc. (John Vanderzanden) against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding alleged production and marketing of chicken without quota.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions concerning hearing dates, witnesses, documentary production, and legal representation.

The appellant chicken producer appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request to carry forward under-marketed chicken from Quota Period A-21.

The appellant argued it under-estimated its chick order because the respondent was late in issuing the quota allotment.

The Tribunal found joint responsibility, as the respondent failed to issue the allotment in a timely manner, but the appellant failed to contact the respondent for an estimate.

The appeal was partially granted, allowing the appellant to carry forward 10% of its under-production plus half of the remaining under-production.

A pre-hearing conference was held to determine procedural matters and set a schedule for the appeal of Olszowka Poultry Inc. against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding quota violations and levies.

The Tribunal issued a consensus order setting the hearing dates and establishing deadlines for document disclosure, witness lists, and stipulations of evidence.

The appellant, a chicken processor, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an additional chicken quota allocation.

The appellant argued that the Special Request Panel's decision was tainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Panel Chair had previously authored a report used against the appellant in a prior proceeding.

The Tribunal found that while a reasonable person might have an apprehension of bias, the appellant waived its right to object by failing to raise the issue at the first opportunity during the Panel meeting.

The Tribunal declined to review the Panel's decision on the basis of bias.

Appeal from a marketing-board penalty arising from unreported chicken production and marketing to a processor during three quota periods.

The tribunal accepted that 7,010 kilograms were produced and marketed but not reported, and that the appellants ought to have known of the irregularities, but also accepted evidence that the processor's weighing and reporting practices were manipulated and that mitigating steps were taken before the regulator's investigation began.

The tribunal held that the monetary assessments and production-record adjustments should stand, but reduced the crop quota penalty to the lower end of the range.

The board's decision was therefore varied by substituting a crop quota reduction of three times the unreported kilograms, totalling 21,030 kilograms.

Farm Fresh Poultry Co-operative Inc. appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying its request for an increased base allocation of live chicken supply and a guaranteed growth process to reach two million kilograms.

Farm Fresh argued it should be treated as a new entrant under Quota Policy 129-1996.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that Farm Fresh was not a new entrant because it had acquired an existing plant's supply, and that the CFO acted fairly in applying its new supply setting agreement.

The Tribunal concluded that economic viability and plant capacity were not valid criteria for allocation.

Subsequently, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs varied the Tribunal's decision, awarding Farm Fresh an additional allocation of 105,000 kilograms for the domestic market commencing in period A-24, but denied the request for an accelerated growth pattern.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to allocate 600,000 kilograms of chicken supply to a new entrant, Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc., for Quota Period A-21.

The appellant argued the allocation was unfair and not in the spirit of a new supply agreement taking effect in the subsequent quota period.

The Tribunal found no substantial change in the marketplace to justify an increase from the 500,000 kilograms allocated in the previous period and directed that the supply be fixed at 500,000 kilograms.

Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc. appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an allocation of supply of chicken for processing for crop Quota Period A-20.

Niagara, a new entrant, had requested 1.6 million kilograms.

The Tribunal considered the industry's capacity, the ongoing review of the allocation process, and the history of granting supply to new entrants.

The Tribunal directed the CFO to allot 100,000 kilograms for the domestic market and 200,000 kilograms for the export market to Niagara for Quota Period A-20.

The appellant, a registered chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) finding that it had produced and marketed 7,567 kilograms of chicken without quota, failed to report chicks placed, and failed to pay license fees.

The CFO had imposed a penalty reducing the appellant's future crop quota by five times the amount of the unreported chicken and assessed levies of $933.37.

The Tribunal heard conflicting evidence regarding whether the appellant had shipped illegal chicken to an abattoir.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the abattoir's bookkeeper and the redirected payment cheques to be credible, concluding that the appellant did ship the unreported chicken.

Finding no mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the CFO's findings and the five-fold penalty, dismissing the appeal.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to allocate 450,000 kg of chicken to Farm Fresh Poultry Co-op Inc. for Quota Period A-19 and 550,000 kg for Quota Period A-20.

The Tribunal found that the CFO did not follow normal practice and that the allocation for A-20 was premature.

The Tribunal directed the CFO to set the A-19 allocation at 382,000 kg and revoked the A-20 allocation.

Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc., a new entrant building a chicken processing facility, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an allocation of 1.6 million kilograms of live chicken for Quota Period A-19.

The Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that granting such a large initial allocation to a plant not yet operational would be irresponsible and disruptive to the industry, especially while a review of the supply setting mechanism was underway.

The appellant processor association appealed a decision by the respondent marketing board to allocate an additional one million kilograms of chicken to a specific processor for a quota period, bypassing the standard special request panel process.

The appellant argued this extra allocation would negatively impact the market and set a dangerous precedent.

The Tribunal found that while the board had the authority to grant the exemption and the processor demonstrated a legitimate need for additional product, the full one million kilogram allocation raised concerns about market effects.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the additional allotment to 600,000 kilograms.