Kristopher Crawford-Dickinson

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which found it had no jurisdiction to consider his appeal regarding the classification of his property in the Farm Property Class.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the moving party failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure of requesting a reconsideration from the Administrator before appealing.

The court concluded there was no reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Tribunal's decision.

The applicants appealed the assessment of numerous commercial investment properties, arguing they should be assessed in the farm property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Tribunal stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether the phrase 'land is owned by' in s. 8(2)3 of the regulation includes both beneficial and legal ownership.

The Divisional Court applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and concluded that the phrase is restricted to legal ownership, relying on the presumption of consistent expression and the presumption against tautology within the legislative scheme.