Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Appeal Tribunal
1Stone Road West
Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2
Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232
Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales
1 Stone Road West
Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2
Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232
Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Meehan v Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario
Meehan v Director of Regulatory Compliance, DFO [Preliminary Decision] 1998 ONAFRAAT 37
STATUTE:
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
HEARING:
September 8, 1998
DATE OF DECISION:
September 9, 1998
1998-37
NEUTRAL CITATION:
1998 ONAFRAAT 37
Meehan v Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario [Preliminary Decision]
IN THE MATTER OF THE MILK ACT AND SECTION 16 OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ACT.
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
An Appeal to the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal by Michael & Anne Meehan, Big Creek Dairy Farms, Carp, Ontario from decisions of the Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, dated June 22, 1998 and July 24, 1998, not to cancel the February, March and April, 1998 freezing point test results and resulting penalties.
Before: Jim Rickard, Chair; Armand Bechard, Member; Charles Broadwell, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON PRELIMINARY MATTER
Donald R. Good, Barrister & Solicitor, on behalf of his clients Michael and Anne Meehan, Big Creek Dairy Farms, filed an appeal with the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal). The appeal was from decisions of the Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO), dated June 22, 1998 and July 24, 1998, not to cancel the February, March and April, 1998 freezing point test results and resulting penalties.
As a preliminary matter, Peter Gould, Director of Regulatory Compliance, DFO, filed written arguments with the Tribunal requesting that the Tribunal exercise its authority to refuse to hear this appeal as in his opinion it is “frivolous”.
Both Mr. Good and Mr. Gould were invited to file with the Tribunal written submissions in support of their position.
The Tribunal met by conference call on Tuesday, September 8, 1998 to review the written information that had been submitted by each party.
Pertinent Legislation
Section 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act reads as follows:
‘The Tribunal may refuse to hear the appeal or, after a hearing has commenced, refuse to
continue the hearing or make a decision if it relates to any order, direction, policy, decision
or regulation of which the appellant has had knowledge for more than one year before the
notice is filed under subsection (1) or (2) or, if in its opinion,
(a) the subject-matter of the appeal is trivial;
(b) the appeal is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith.
Decision on Preliminary Matter
A panel of the Tribunal reviewed the correspondence that was exchanged by both parties and concluded that:
There should be a hearing on this matter to be convened at a date suitable to all parties.
Mediation is not within the mandate of this Tribunal
DATED AT Guelph, Ontario THIS 9th day of September, 1998.