Graham Lloyd

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy farm operation and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy restricting the transfer and merger of milk quota.

They wished to permanently transfer the newly acquired quota to their home farm without renovating the purchased facilities or milking there for the required five years.

The Tribunal found the DFO's quota transfer restrictions valid and authorized by the Milk Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an exemption, finding the appellants' reasons did not justify circumventing the policy.

However, the Tribunal reduced the conditional penalty for failing to return the cows to the purchased farm from a 20% quota reduction to a 10% reduction.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy operation but only acquired a fraction of the associated land.

They moved the purchased herd to their home farm under a temporary shared facilities agreement, intending to renovate the purchased farm.

They later abandoned renovation plans and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy to permanently merge the quotas at their home farm.

The DFO denied the exemption and ordered the cows returned to the purchased farm, imposing a 20% quota reduction penalty if they failed to comply.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's denial of the exemption, finding the appellants' desire for efficiency did not justify circumventing quota transfer policies.

However, the Tribunal found the 20% penalty disproportionate and reduced it to 10%.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Producers (AOCP) brought a motion for limited party (intervenor) status in an appeal by a dairy producer against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO).

The AOCP argued it had an interest in the constitutional and Competition Act issues raised by the appellant regarding supply management policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the AOCP failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal, which concerned milk quota transfer policies.

The Tribunal also noted that granting status shortly before the scheduled hearing would cause prejudice and delay.

The appellants, dairy farmers operating an organic farm, appealed a decision imposing a $530.46 penalty after a milk sample from their bulk tank tested positive for an abnormal freezing point.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative and questioned the collection, transportation, and testing methods, citing extreme cold weather and potential human error.

The Tribunal found that the respondent followed all proper procedures to maintain the integrity of the sample and that the appellants' challenge was based on pure speculation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld.

The appellants, who immigrated from Holland to purchase a dairy farm in Ontario, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request to transfer an additional 25 kg of milk quota from the farm's seller.

The appellants argued their situation was unique and extraordinary because they had already sold their Dutch farm and committed to the purchase before realizing the full quota could not be transferred under DFO policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants proceeded with the purchase with full knowledge of the reduced quota and that their circumstances were neither exceptional nor outside their control.

The appellant, a candidate in a Dairy Farmers of Ontario board election, appealed the Returning Officer's decision to reject 10 ballots postmarked the day after the regulatory deadline.

The appellant argued the ballots might have been consigned to the post office on the deadline day but postmarked late due to local post office practices.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Returning Officer correctly applied Section 14(4) of Regulation 760 of the Milk Act, which requires the officer to be satisfied the ballots were mailed or consigned by the deadline, and that relying on the postmark provides an objective standard.

The appellant, a milk producer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to reject a bulk tank of milk due to a 'malty' odour.

The appellant argued that the bulk tank milk grader did not follow proper procedures and that DFO's policy of not allowing second opinions was unfair.

The Tribunal found that the time temperature recorder data corroborated the grader's assessment of a malfunctioning agitator, which led to improper cooling and the malty smell.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection, concluding that the DFO acted within its legislative discretion and that procedural errors did not negate the grader's valid determination.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to transfer his dairy quota to his daughter.

The DFO denied the transfer because it would effectively merge the quota with the daughter's in-laws' existing dairy operation, which the DFO argued was prohibited under its 2010 Parent to Child Transfer policy.

The Tribunal found that the plain language of the 2010 policy did not actually prohibit the specific type of transfer requested, despite the DFO's stated intentions to prevent mergers.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the DFO to process the quota transfer.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to transfer his dairy quota to his daughter.

The DFO had denied the request on the basis that the transfer would effectively merge the quota with her husband's family's existing dairy operation, which the DFO argued was prohibited under its 2010 policy changes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the plain language of the 2010 Parent to Child Transfer policy did not actually prohibit the requested transfer, despite the DFO's stated intentions to prevent mergers.

The Tribunal ordered the quota transferred.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to review an order requiring it to post $250,000 in security for costs.

The appellant argued that the extension was necessary because the original judge indicated he would remain seized of the matter while the appellant attempted to arrange security.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time but upheld the original order, finding the judge was entitled to conclude that $250,000 was an appropriate amount for security.

The appellant was granted a further period to post the security.