Geoffrey P. Spurr

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal, which summarily dismissed its appeal from a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO).

The Tribunal had found it lacked jurisdiction to order the EFO to implement a direct marketing system without a prior investigation or decision by the EFO, and alternatively dismissed the appeal as vexatious and in bad faith.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal cannot direct the EFO to exercise discretionary powers without a substantive basis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which dismissed its request for an increase in its chicken processing quota.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's factual determination regarding the date of rebasing was supported by evidence and reasonable.

The Court also held that the applicant could not rely on a contract it had expressly abandoned before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal was not required to provide reasons for declining to depart from its usual policies.

Following the resolution of an application challenging a regulation after the respondents agreed to amend it, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the applicants.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the litigation involved costs thrown away and abusive conduct by the respondents.

The court rejected both arguments, holding the matter resembled a typical settlement scenario and that the respondents had not acted unreasonably.

The court also rejected requests to exclude negotiation time and expert-related costs from the applicants’ bill of costs, but found the total amount claimed excessive.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants, dairy farmers, sought judicial review of a decision by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal confirming their violation of a milk marketing regulation and imposing penalties including quota and licence cancellations.

The applicants argued that an ongoing appeal stayed the regulation's operation.

The Divisional Court held that the stay did not suspend the validly enacted regulation and upheld the finding of liability.

However, the court found the penalty of licence cancellation and forced sale of remaining quota to be disproportionate and unjust, varying the penalty to only a partial cancellation of quota.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to admit five affidavits as evidence on the judicial review hearing, arguing they were necessary because no official transcript or audio recording of the tribunal proceedings existed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the delay was not deliberate or highly prejudicial.

The court granted the cross-motion, applying an exception to the general rule against admitting affidavits on judicial review, as the applicants would otherwise be unable to effectively challenge the tribunal's findings of fact and credibility.

The applicants, a group of dairy farmers who export their milk, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Minister had rescinded a Tribunal order that would have allowed the applicants to export milk without holding provincial quota.

The applicants challenged the Minister's decision on administrative law grounds, including bias and inadequate reasons, and argued that the provincial milk marketing scheme was an ultra vires attempt to regulate international trade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the provincial scheme was a valid regulation of intraprovincial trade that only incidentally affected exports, and that the Minister's decision was not patently unreasonable, biased, or procedurally unfair.