5 total
Judicial review dismissed; Tribunal reasonably upheld DFO's $7 million surcharge for unverifiable milk usage declarations.
The applicant, a milk processor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's (DFO) order requiring the applicant to pay approximately $7 million for milk pricing adjustments.
The DFO had charged the applicant the highest price for milk after audits revealed the applicant's Milk Utilization Verification (MUV) declarations could not be verified due to inadequate record-keeping.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the regulatory scheme—that MUV declarations must be verifiable—was reasonable.
The Court also upheld the Tribunal's findings that the higher price was a surcharge, not a penalty, and that the interlocutory order requiring a $3.3 million letter of credit was reasonable.
Appeal dismissed; court found a good arguable case that the claim against the federal Crown arose in Ontario.
The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment, arguing for the first time that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under s. 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
The respondent alleged that Canadian officials in Ottawa and consular staff in Egypt and Sudan actively facilitated the illegal removal of his daughter from Egypt to Ontario.
The court held it had jurisdiction to hear the new issue on appeal and found a good arguable case that the claim arose in Ontario, primarily because the issuance of a temporary passport by officials in Ottawa was the essential act that enabled the removal.
The appeal was dismissed.
Tribunal set aside Registrar's proposal to revoke and refuse cannabis licences, finding insufficient evidence of misconduct.
The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke T-Dot's Cannabis Retail Operator licence and refuse a Cannabis Retail Manager licence to Manoharan.
The Registrar alleged that Manoharan's spouse was an "interested person" in the business and that his past conduct, along with Manoharan's alleged misrepresentations and financial history, provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business with integrity, honesty, or financial responsibility.
The Tribunal found that the spouse was not an interested person under the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.
The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of misrepresentations or financial irresponsibility.
The Tribunal set aside the Notice of Proposal and directed the Registrar to issue the manager licence without conditions and maintain the operator licence subject to a condition requiring annual review engagements.
Tribunal upholds DFO's authority to retroactively invoice dairy processor at highest class price for unverifiable records.
The appellant, a mid-sized dairy processor, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to invoice it retroactively at the highest class price for milk deliveries after multiple audits found its production records unreliable and unverifiable.
The appellant argued that the retroactive invoice constituted an unauthorized penalty under the Milk Act and that DFO lacked authority to impose it.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 24 of DFO General Regulation 10/17 authorizes DFO to charge the highest class price when a processor fails to provide verifiable milk utilization declarations.
The Tribunal also held that the surcharge was not a penalty but a mechanism to ensure fair compensation to dairy farmers.
Finally, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a prior settlement agreement between the parties.
Summary judgment motion dismissed in action alleging Canadian consular officials facilitated international child abduction.
The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligence, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.
The plaintiff alleged that Canadian consular officials facilitated the kidnapping of his daughter by his ex-wife from Egypt to Canada.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the defendant owed a duty of care, whether its actions constituted protected consular services, and whether the plaintiff's Charter rights were breached.
