OAFRAAT 2011

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied for renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal raised concerns regarding the treatment of the payment provided to the Ministry under section 21(1) of the Act as a membership fee, noting discrepancies in statutory language and tax treatment.

The Tribunal issued an interim order inviting submissions from the applicant, other farm organizations, and the Ministry on the proper interpretation of the Act and Regulation before making a final decision.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario applied for renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

Following the hearing, the Tribunal raised concerns regarding whether the payment provided to the Ministry under section 21(1) of the Act could be treated as a membership fee, noting apparent contradictions between the Act and Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal issued an interim order deferring its final decision and inviting submissions on the proper interpretation of the legislation from the applicant, other accredited farm organizations, and the Ministry.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario applied for renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal raised concerns regarding whether the payment provided to the Ministry under section 21(1) of the Act could be treated as a membership fee, noting discrepancies between the Act and the Regulation.

The Tribunal issued an interim order inviting submissions from the applicant, other farm organizations, and the Ministry on the proper interpretation of the legislation before making a final decision.

The applicant purchased a colour sorting machine for agricultural use that failed to perform to specifications within the first ten days of use.

Despite actual notice, the dealer and distributor failed to repair the machine, replace it, or terminate the sale agreement as required by the Farm Implements Act.

The Tribunal ordered the termination of the sale agreement and directed the distributor and dealer to refund the purchase price to the applicant.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request to transfer his remaining milk quota to his family's adjacent dairy farm corporation.

The appellant sought an exemption from DFO policy to allow the transfer and merger of the quota due to financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found that an exemption was warranted for the portion of the quota originally transferred from the father to the son in 1994, as there was a verbal agreement for its return.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the remaining quota purchased independently by the appellant, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exemption from the current DFO policy.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Story Drain project under the Drainage Act.

The project involved incorporating an existing private drain enclosure into the municipal drain and replacing a failed section.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of prior engineering costs, the adequacy of allowances for right-of-way and existing drains, the assessment ratios, and the location of the outlet.

The Tribunal ordered a nominal allowance for the existing drain, adjusted the Benefit/Outlet assessment ratios to 60/40, removed a portion of the prior engineering costs, and confirmed the existing outlet location.

Requests for costs were denied.

The appellant appealed a Director's decision refusing to renew its licence to operate a meat plant.

The Tribunal found that the appellant routinely failed to comply with the Food Safety and Quality Act and regulations, compromising food safety and risk management.

The appellant's operator also obstructed, intimidated, and threatened Ministry meat inspectors.

Concluding that the appellant lacked the necessary understanding, skilled personnel, and financial resources to operate in compliance with the legislation, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal to renew the licence.

The appellant, an Ontario chicken producer, appealed decisions of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) declining his request to revoke a regulation and policy amendment that placed a moratorium on increasing processing contracts with Quebec processors.

The appellant argued the amendments were ultra vires as they controlled interprovincial trade.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pith and substance of the impugned instruments was the regulation of chicken marketing transactions within Ontario, which falls squarely within the CFO's delegated authority under the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Several landowners appealed their assessments under the Drainage Act for the Moon Drain 2010, seeking a 12% reduction.

They argued the Engineer showed favouritism to one landowner by designing the drain with a 38mm drainage coefficient instead of a 25mm coefficient, which increased costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the Engineer acted independently and that the 38mm coefficient was appropriate for a system allowing direct surface water entry, consistent with the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The applicant farm implement dealer brought a dispute against the respondent manufacturer regarding the end of their 19-year business relationship and warranty repair reimbursements.

The Tribunal divided the hearing into two phases, with Phase 1 focusing on liability.

The Tribunal found that the manufacturer did not breach section 18 of the Farm Implements Act regarding warranty reimbursements, as it paid the dealer in accordance with their existing agreement.

However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer breached Ontario Regulation 123/06 by refusing to renew the dealership agreement, as the Regulation removed the manufacturer's contractual right to unilaterally non-renew and required that renewal approval not be unreasonably withheld.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) requested full party status in an ongoing appeal by a chicken producer challenging a regulatory moratorium imposed by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario.

The Tribunal considered the common law principles of intervention and determined that granting full party status on the eve of the hearing would be unfair to the existing parties.

However, recognizing AOCP's sufficient interest in the subject matter, the Tribunal granted AOCP intervenor status to make submissions as a friend of the court.

The applicant purchased a colour sorting machine and subsequently sought a refund under the Farm Implements Act, alleging the machine failed to perform to specifications.

The dealer brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the machine was not a farm implement, there was no evidence of specifications, it had no obligation to refund, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make monetary awards.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for a hearing on the first three grounds, and concluding it had both explicit and implicit statutory authority to grant remedial orders, including refunds.

The Municipality of Southwest Middlesex requested a review of a Tribunal decision regarding the Miller Drainage Works.

The Tribunal had previously found that the original engineer was unduly influenced by the Municipality but allowed him to continue preparing the final report.

On review, the Tribunal found that allowing the same engineer to continue could create a perception of bias.

The Tribunal granted the review in part, ordering the Municipality to appoint a new engineer to complete the project.

The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board brought a motion to quash an appeal by Woodbury Leaf Inc. and others regarding decisions made under the Tobacco Transition Program.

The Board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the decisions were not made under the Farm Products Marketing Act and the Tribunal could not grant the requested relief.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the Board's decisions regarding the federal program were made pursuant to its statutory authority under the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to grant the requested relief because the Board still had authority over the quota system at the time the appeal was initially filed.

The appellant, a tobacco farming corporation, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying the use of its previous farm licence numbers and a refund for licence fees paid in 2009 and 2010.

The appellant argued that the Board did not have the authority to remove its basic production quota (BPQ) and that the new licensing system improperly limited production.

The Tribunal found that the Board had the absolute authority to remove the BPQ and transition to a licensing system under the Farm Products Marketing Act and its regulations.

The Tribunal also found that the new licensing system did not improperly limit production, as growers could produce as much tobacco as they could secure contracts for.

The appeal was denied, as the Tribunal could not reinstate a quota system that no longer existed.

Several landowners appealed the decisions of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Baer Municipal Drain.

At the hearing, the Tribunal discovered that the Engineer's Report adopted by the municipal council and circulated to landowners was neither signed nor sealed by the engineer.

The Tribunal found that the unsigned and unsealed report was not a valid report under the Drainage Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Engineer's Report, rendering the appeals moot, and directed that the proper statutory process be followed for adopting a new report.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the replacement of a closed tile drain on agricultural land located in a flood plain.

The appellants argued the proposed 24-inch tile was unnecessarily large, that blowouts were caused by floodwaters rather than inadequate capacity, and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's design standard was reasonable and in accordance with the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Tribunal upheld the construction assessments but ordered revisions to the maintenance assessments and deleted a right-of-way allowance that had been previously paid.

The Tribunal also ordered the municipality to bear the Engineer's hearing costs due to inadequate communication during the process.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the assessments were too high and that downstream drainage issues should be addressed first.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed work, which included relocating a portion of the drain to follow the natural gradient, was necessary and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found the assessments fair and equitable and dismissed the appeals, while granting the engineer's request to amend the working corridor and corresponding allowances.

The appellant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his appeal regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain and awarded $10,000 in costs against him.

The original appeal was dismissed after the appellant failed to attend the hearing or provide evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the appellant failed to provide any information meeting the requirements for a review and that the original panel correctly applied the law and rules of procedure in dismissing the appeal and awarding costs due to the appellant's conduct.