Kristopher Crawford-Dickinson

The Administrator brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the inclusion of a property in the Farm Property Class.

The Administrator argued that the property owners' failure to file a timely application or a request for reconsideration barred the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act is remedial and allows the Board to extend the time for an appeal to correct palpable errors, curing procedural defects.

Furthermore, the precondition for a request for reconsideration does not apply when MPAC is the appellant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which found it had no jurisdiction to consider his appeal regarding the classification of his property in the Farm Property Class.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the moving party failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure of requesting a reconsideration from the Administrator before appealing.

The court concluded there was no reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act.

The Tribunal found that the NFU-O did not have standing to apply because it did not represent farmers in the province, but rather acted as a passive legal conduit for the federally incorporated National Farmers Union (NFU) to access stable funding.

The Tribunal also found that, even if the NFU-O had standing, it failed to meet the prescribed criteria for accreditation.

The application was dismissed.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs appeared in support of the application.

Due to the urgent need to finalize annual farming business registration forms, the Tribunal released its decision without reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the NFU-O's application for accreditation, with written reasons to follow.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the newly amended criteria in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including membership fee requirements, incorporation, purpose, and funding agreements, the Tribunal granted the accreditation for a period of three years.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the amended criteria in O. Reg. 723/93.

Finding that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including having an annual membership fee of at least $195, being incorporated, representing persons carrying on farming businesses, providing advice to governments, and agreeing to provide special funding to the eligible francophone organization, the Tribunal granted the accreditation for a period of three years.

The applicants appealed the assessment of numerous commercial investment properties, arguing they should be assessed in the farm property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Tribunal stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether the phrase 'land is owned by' in s. 8(2)3 of the regulation includes both beneficial and legal ownership.

The Divisional Court applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and concluded that the phrase is restricted to legal ownership, relying on the presumption of consistent expression and the presumption against tautology within the legislative scheme.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed the Director's decision to grant Esskay Dairy Ltd. a permit to construct a dairy plant for manufacturing lassi.

The appellant argued the Director failed to properly consider the negative impact on existing plants under section 14(3)(a) of the Milk Act, given the limited industrial milk supply.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed plant was necessary and desirable as it would manufacture a unique product, create local jobs, and potentially increase the overall demand for milk, thereby advancing the legislative purpose of stimulating milk production in Ontario.

The Director requested a pre-hearing conference to argue a motion for summary judgment to revoke two orders made in a previous Tribunal decision regarding the return of seized livestock medicines and personal items.

The Tribunal held that it does not have the statutory authority or inherent jurisdiction to grant summary judgment, as its Rules of Procedure do not contain a provision analogous to Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Tribunal issued procedural directions for the review hearing to proceed in writing.