2 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.
Insurers owe no duty to defend where negligent misrepresentation claims are derivative of intentional breach of contract.
The applicant developer sought declarations that its insurers, Aviva and Northbridge, owed a duty to defend and indemnify it in a class action.
The class action alleged the developer negligently misrepresented that condominium units would include a heating system and storage locker, which were not provided.
The insurers denied coverage on the basis that the developer's failure to provide the items was an intentional business decision, not an 'occurrence' or accident.
The court agreed with the insurers, finding that the negligent misrepresentation claims were entirely derivative of the intentional breach of contract.
The applications for coverage were dismissed.
