Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
2023 ONAFRAAT 03
IN THE MATTER OF THE Farm Implements Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.4
AND IN THE MATTER OF Rule 33.01 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
BETWEEN:
John D. Munroe and Patsy M. Munroe Applicants Self-Represented
– and –
Delta Power Equipment Respondent Self-Represented
Before: Glenn C. Walker, Chair; Betty Ann MacKinnon; Dave Stevens
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1John and Patsy Munroe made a complaint to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to the Farm Implements Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.4 (the “Act”) against Delta Power Equipment seeking compensation in the amount of $7,000.
2The complaint concerned the repair of a 5640 Ford/New Holland tractor purchased by the applicants in 1993 and there is no remaining warranty.
3The tractor is used on the applicants’ farm and is the main tractor used to move hay bales and clean manure out of the barn.
4The applicants engaged Delta Power Equipment to perform certain repairs on the tractor, including repairing or replacing the power take-off, the power steering, the three-point hitch and the clutch.
5The applicants’ complaints concern the cost and the length of time Delta Power Equipment took to effect the repairs. They are seeking a reduction in the cost of the repairs and compensation for being without the tractor for so long.
FARM IMPLEMENTS ACT
6The Act provides specific relief for certain persons in specified circumstances regarding farm implements. It does not provide an answer for all disputes involving farm implements.
7Section 5 permits a “purchaser, dealer, distributor or manufacturer” to request that the Director appointed under the Act inquire into and attempt to resolve a dispute with respect to any matter arising from the application of the Act or the regulations. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues with the assistance of a mediator, any party may apply to the Tribunal for a hearing.
8The mediation between the applicants and the respondent was unsuccessful and the applicants now seek a hearing before the Tribunal.
9The Act does deal with the issue of repairs but usually in the context of the purchase of new or used farm implements. The issue here is based solely on a contract of repair of a tractor no longer under warranty.
10In this case, it seems that the complaints are: the installation of a non-approved part (a gauge), the price of the parts, the hours of labour billed, the length of time to do the repair, and concerns about the quality of work done on the clutch.
RULE 33.01
11This rule provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal (which includes an application or a complaint) on its own motion without a hearing if, in the Tribunal’s opinion, the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
12By way of a Notice of Possible Dismissal Without a Hearing dated January 3, 2023, the Tribunal sought written submissions from both parties concerning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this proceeding. No submissions have been received.
ANALYSIS
13There do not appear to be provisions in the Act that would assist the applicants. The parts supply warranty is well expired and does not seem relevant anyway, and the parts quality warranty does not seem to be at issue (unless the clutch issue fits, but the allegation is that the flywheel may not have been resurfaced – a quality of work issue, not quality of repair parts). The emergency repair parts provisions only apply within the first 10 years from purchase.
14In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal has relied solely on the applicants’ complaint and documents attached thereto.
15It is therefore clear that there is no remedy in the Act for the applicants and consequently the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. There may, however, be judicial remedies available to the applicants outside of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
ORDER
16The complaint of the applicants is dismissed.
17Any party may appeal the decision of the Tribunal on a question of law to the Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice in accordance with its rules of practice within 15 days from the day on which the decision was served.
Released: March 23, 2023