Jennifer Brevorka

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.

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.

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.