3 total
Appeal of positive inhibitor test result denied; appellant failed to prove sample contamination or mishandling.
The appellant appealed a decision allowing a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample from its farm to stand.
The appellant argued that the sample collection and handling by the bulk tank milk grader was improper, suggesting the grader's son may have contaminated or switched the sample.
The Tribunal found no evidence to support the appellant's theory and concluded there was no doubt the milk in the bulk tank contained inhibitors.
The appeal was denied, and the penalties and costs assessed were upheld.
Appeal to delay implementation of fluid milk distribution policy changes dismissed as adequate consultation occurred.
The appellants, four independent dairies in Northern Ontario, appealed a decision by the Farm Products Marketing Commission to modify its Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy.
The policy changes merged distribution areas and allowed fluid milk products processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.
The appellants argued the Commission failed to consult adequately on the substance of the changes and requested the Tribunal direct the Commission to reopen the issue and conduct hearings in Northern Ontario.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission had conducted adequate consultation with the industry starting in 1993 and that the industry should not have been surprised by the policy change.
Appeal of fluid milk distribution policy changes dismissed; Tribunal found Commission adequately consulted industry.
The appellants appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend the Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy, which eliminated distribution areas in Northern Ontario and allowed fluid milk processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.
The appellants requested a delay in implementation and public hearings, and one appellant requested an exemption to source milk from Southern Ontario earlier than scheduled.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the Commission had adequately consulted the industry, had considered the anticipated impact, and had provided adequate notification of the phased implementation.
The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to address the exemption request as it had not been considered by the Commission.
