OAFRAAT 2020

The Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens (UCFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for reaccreditation and eligibility for special funding under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the documentary evidence, including UCFO's Triennial Report, financial statements, and letters of support from other accredited farm organizations.

Finding that UCFO met all the statutory and regulatory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application, confirming UCFO's eligibility for special funding for a three-year period ending November 8, 2023.

The appellants appealed a drainage assessment under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

During the hearing, the municipality's drainage engineer testified and mentioned a recent municipal council decision offering property owners a 20-year payment option for assessments.

The appellants, who were previously unaware of this option, requested a recess and subsequently withdrew their appeal.

The Tribunal confirmed the withdrawal and concluded the hearing.

The appellant, Association of Ontario Chicken Processors, brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondent, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission, to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for the annual hatching egg producer hours considered in the cost of production formula.

The respondent argued the issue of all production hours was not properly before the Tribunal and that the motion was an improper attempt to request new evidence.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to order particulars related to management labour hours, which were properly under appeal, but not production labour hours.

The motion was granted in part, ordering the respondent to provide a detailed list of tasks and associated hours for management hours.

The appellants requested a review of an April 2020 Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal regarding the Egg Farmers of Ontario's pullet leasing policies.

The appellants alleged ten material errors of fact and law in the original decision, primarily concerning the Tribunal's findings on lease fees, market demand, and whether the policies penalized new entrants.

The Vice-Chair found no material errors of fact or law in the original decision and denied the request for review.

Multiple landowners appealed a municipal drainage report proposing a clean-out, dyke, and large pumping station for a watershed containing extensive forested lands and Provincially Significant Wetlands.

The Tribunal held that the appellants established, on a balance of probabilities, that the benefits of the pumping station and dyke were not commensurate with their estimated costs, relying in particular on accepted expert evidence in agricultural economics and other admissible technical evidence.

The Tribunal also found numerous errors and omissions in the report’s assessment methodology, including the treatment of forested lands, PSWs, pump-station benefit allocation, road omissions, and specific property assessments.

Because the pumping station and dyke were the report’s main element and the defects were too extensive to cure by amendment, the Tribunal set the 2017 Engineer’s Report aside in its entirety.

Municipal engineering-related costs were ordered paid from general funds, while the appellants and other parties were to bear their own costs.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a pre-hearing conference to address allegations that counsel breached a prior confidentiality order regarding restricted access motions.

The Tribunal found no intentional disclosures of confidential material by either party.

To ensure clarity moving forward, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering that all materials related to the restricted access request, including third-party materials, remain confidential and sealed.

The Tribunal also established a formal motion process for third parties seeking participant or intervenor status on the restricted access motion.

The respondent, a Quebec-based farm equipment dealer, brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's dispute under the Farm Implements Act for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent argued it had no physical location in Ontario and relied on a choice of law clause in the contract specifying Quebec law.

The Tribunal found a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the respondent advertised, delivered, and serviced equipment in Ontario, and was registered as a dealer under the Ontario Act.

The Tribunal also found the choice of law clause unenforceable as an unfair term because it was not brought to the applicant's attention.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The appellants, who are pullet and egg producers, appealed decisions of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding policies and procedures for leasing pullet quota.

The appellants challenged the May 2018 and January 2019 Pullet Leasing Pool Policies, arguing they were adopted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and penalized new farmers.

The Tribunal found that EFO acted transparently, consulted with producers, and implemented the policies within its mandate to manage the quota system efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the policies were not punitive but served to fulfill the intended goals of the quota system.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent requested a review of a prior Tribunal decision that set aside an engineer's report (the Spriet Report) for a municipal drain and ordered the Municipality to retain an independent coastal engineer.

The Municipality argued the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, improperly relied on hearsay evidence, and erred in summoning the coastal engineer to testify at the review hearing.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov, the Review Panel affirmed the prior decision.

The Panel held that the Tribunal had the statutory authority under the Drainage Act to procure independent engineering reports and that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the admission of hearsay evidence.

The Review Panel found no breach of procedural fairness in summoning the coastal engineer to allow for cross-examination, and concluded the original panel provided rational reasons for setting aside the Spriet Report.

The appellants appealed the municipality's decision to deny their petition for drainage works under section 4(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants experienced significant surface and subsurface water flow from a neighbouring property, causing damage to their foundation.

The municipality argued the issue could be resolved without a petition and raised concerns about the threshold requirements.

The Tribunal found the appellants established a valid drainage issue warranting investigation and ordered the municipality to accept the petition and appoint an engineer to determine if the statutory thresholds are met.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) provide the Tribunal with eleven categories of documents pursuant to subsection 16(7) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal interpreted subsection 16(7) as requiring the regulatory decision-maker to forward the essential elements of the decision-making record, not to provide broad documentary discovery.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had already discharged its statutory obligation by providing the relevant audit reports, correspondence, and board minutes that informed its decision.

The motion was dismissed as an improper attempt at broad documentary discovery.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Filsinger Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of certain lands in the watershed, the scope and cost of the proposed drainage work, the right-of-way allowances, and the assessment calculations.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals regarding the watershed and drainage work, finding the existing drain was in poor condition and the proposed improvements were necessary.

The Tribunal allowed one appellant's appeal in part, increasing his right-of-way allowance based on a higher land value.

The Tribunal also allowed the section 54 appeals in part, adjusting the maintenance assessments for the upstream reach of the closed drain, but otherwise upheld the engineer's assessment calculations.