Donald Good

The Appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance imposing a level 4 penalty for high somatic cell counts in their milk.

The Appellants argued that several milk samples were rendered unsuitable for testing due to circumstances outside their control, and requested that favourable test results be imputed for those missing samples to reduce their demerit percentage below the penalty threshold.

The Tribunal found that the available test results were representative of the milk offered for sale and that it lacked the authority under the Raw Milk Quality Program Policies to impute test results.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants brought a motion seeking disclosure of documents and the consolidation of three separate appeals against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Director of Regulatory Compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the requested board minutes and communications, subject to claims of privilege.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to consolidate the appeals, noting that section 9.1(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act requires the consent of all parties to consolidate or hear proceedings together, which was not provided.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard consecutively by the same panel.

The applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his crop insurance appeal for delay.

The appeal had been adjourned in 2009 due to health issues, but the applicant failed to schedule a re-hearing for over five years and ignored multiple communications from the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no new evidence, no material error of law or fact in the dismissal decision, and that the extensive delay was attributable to the applicant and his counsel.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Beets Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his lands did not require additional drainage, that the proposed drain would interfere with his farming operations, and that the allowances provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support modifying the assessments or allowances.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's proposed modifications to the drainage works, finding they did not provide a sufficient outlet as required by the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied and the Engineer's Report was confirmed.

The applicant farm implement dealer brought a dispute against the respondent manufacturer regarding the end of their 19-year business relationship and warranty repair reimbursements.

The Tribunal divided the hearing into two phases, with Phase 1 focusing on liability.

The Tribunal found that the manufacturer did not breach section 18 of the Farm Implements Act regarding warranty reimbursements, as it paid the dealer in accordance with their existing agreement.

However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer breached Ontario Regulation 123/06 by refusing to renew the dealership agreement, as the Regulation removed the manufacturer's contractual right to unilaterally non-renew and required that renewal approval not be unreasonably withheld.

The appellant corporation appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its dairy quota.

The appellant argued that the unexpected terminal illness and death of one of the farm's two primary operators constituted special circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal found that while the circumstances were tragic, the surviving operator was physically capable of continuing the operation and the decision to exit the industry was a personal choice rather than an absolute necessity.

The Tribunal concluded that granting an exemption for a personal decision to exit the industry would improperly expand the special circumstances policy, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued the sale was forced due to the primary operator's back condition.

The Tribunal found that the operator's condition did not constitute a unique or extraordinary circumstance warranting special consideration, especially since he continued to work as a crop farmer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, owners of a dairy farm, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for a medical exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of their quota.

The primary operator was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and subsequently suffered a severe arm injury in a farm accident, forcing the sale of the herd and quota.

The Tribunal found that the DFO's policy prohibiting medical exemptions was implemented after the appellants' quota sale and exemption request, and could not be applied retroactively.

Noting the DFO's history of granting exemptions in similar unexpected circumstances, the Tribunal granted the appeal on compassionate grounds and ordered the DFO to reimburse the $304,729.71 transfer assessment.

The appellant, an unincorporated association of dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) not to rescind its November 2006 Quota Policy on Transfer Assessments.

The appellant argued the policy was flawed and requested rescission along with over $15 million in compensation for its members.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant individual compensation as it was not requested before the DFO.

On the merits, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the Ontario dairy industry was overcapitalized and that the policy successfully stabilized quota values.

The Tribunal concluded the positive impacts of the policy on the industry outweighed the negative impacts on the appellant's members, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of his milk quota.

The appellant argued he had planned an orderly exit from the industry prior to the implementation of the assessment policy and raised medical grounds not previously submitted to the board.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the new medical evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, concluding the appellant did not experience undue hardship and his exit from the industry was not imminent when the policy was implemented.

The applicant farm equipment dealer brought a motion for production and discovery against a non-party trade association, seeking confidential market share data to challenge the respondent manufacturer's termination of their dealership agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the requested data was protected by the common law privilege of confidentiality and the applicant failed to establish the relevance and importance of the documents.

The Tribunal also refused leave to examine the non-party for discovery, noting it would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant was ordered to pay the non-party's costs of the motion.

On a motion within an appeal from dairy quota policy changes, the Tribunal held that an appeal from the respondent board's new quota policies triggered the automatic stay under s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the Tribunal found a serious issue, irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay remained wholly in place, and a balance of inconvenience favouring the respondent board.

The Tribunal nevertheless held that statutory stays should be lifted cautiously and that the original stay had suspended the new policies in their entirety.

It limited the stay so that only producer members of the appellant organization as of the launch date of the appeal remained subject to the old 2006 policies pending the appeal.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to lift or vary an automatic stay imposed on its March 2009 quota policy pending an appeal by the Ontario Quota Rights Organization (OQRO).

The OQRO brought a motion to adjourn the DFO's motion to allow for cross-examination.

The Tribunal acknowledged the urgency of determining the stay before the policy's effective date but granted a short adjournment to ensure a full record and allow the OQRO to prepare its argument effectively.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal by the Ontario Quota Rights Organization and individual dairy farmers against a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting deadlines for document disclosure, expert reports, and the filing of a common book of documents.

The Tribunal also scheduled a hearing for the respondent's motion to lift the statutory stay of its decision.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of their production quota.

The appellants argued they were entitled to a medical exemption due to the severe and debilitating health issues of the principal operator, which forced their imminent exit from the industry.

The Tribunal found that the DFO's exemption request procedure was flawed and that the appellants were not given an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal granted the appeal on compassionate grounds, finding that the appellants' orderly exit was already in progress prior to the policy's implementation and that the DFO committed procedural errors.

The DFO was ordered to refund the $114,492.80 assessment.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal addressed two contentious issues regarding evidence and discovery.

First, an intervener sought to file additional confidential documents after the deadline; the Tribunal directed them to bring a motion for leave.

Second, the appellant sought market data from another intervener who was treated as a non-party for discovery purposes; the Tribunal directed the appellant to bring a motion for third-party production under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Tribunal also issued orders on consent regarding expert reports, discovery undertakings, and scheduling.

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 applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied his crop insurance claim for soybeans and allowed partial recovery for red spring wheat.

The applicant argued the Tribunal misapplied the law on the strict interpretation of insurance contracts.

The Vice Chair found that the Tribunal's approach to interpreting the crop insurance contract was inconsistent with the law, constituting a material error of law.

The request for a review of the decision was granted.

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.