Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West, 2^nd Floor NW

Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West, 2^e étage NW

Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca

Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Courriel: AFRAAT@ontario.ca

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL

APPEAL:

Chantelle Leslie and Erick Leach and Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and the Director of Regulatory Compliance (RE) [ORDER]

Chantelle Leslie and Erick Leach and Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and the Director of Regulatory Compliance (RE) [ORDER] 2024 ONAFRAAT 20

STATUTE:

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act

HEARING:

July 12, 2024

DATE OF DECISION:

September 25, 2024

001Leslie24

NEUTRAL CITATION:

2024 ONAFRAAT 20

IN THE MATTER OF THE Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.16, AS AMENDED

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) by Chantelle Leslie and Erick Leach regarding a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario dated February 9, 2024, and a further appeal of a Decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance dated December 1, 2023.

AND IN THE MATTER OF A Motion pursuant to Rule 30 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure

BETWEEN:

Chantelle Leslie and Erick Leach Appellants

– and –

Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and the Director of Regulatory Compliance Respondents

Before: Glenn C. Walker, Chair

Appearances: Donald R. Good, Counsel for Appellants Arlene Minott, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for DFO Geoffrey P. Spurr, Counsel for DFO and the Director of Regulatory Compliance

Represented by Donald R. Good

Represented by Geoffrey P. Spurr Heard: July 12, 2024, via Zoom

MOTION DECISION

1In their Notice of Motion, the Appellants listed six unnumbered requests for relief. The first four requests for relief were in relation to the decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance and could have resulted in that decision being set aside on the motion.

2In their Factum at paragraph 5 the Appellants agreed to defer the first four requests for relief to the full hearing. The Appellants withdrew those four requests for relief from consideration by the Tribunal on the motion at the beginning of the hearing.

3The Tribunal heard argument on the remaining two requests for relief, that is a request that the Tribunal determine the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to provide relief and remedies under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the request for disclosure.

4The motion for the determination of the remaining two requests for relief was dismissed with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

THE SCOPE OF THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION

5The Appellants have requested that the Tribunal determine the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to provide relief and remedies under the Ontario Human Rights Code (“OHRC”) prior to a full hearing.

6The Director of Regulatory Compliance (“DRC”) and Dairy Farmers of Ontario (“DFO”) do not dispute the general proposition that the Tribunal can consider the OHRC and related issues in the context of an appeal before it.

7However, the DRC and DFO both dispute the applicability of the OHRC considerations in the context of the decisions under appeal.

8The Appellants have been unable to provide the Tribunal with any case law to assist it in determining the scope of its jurisdiction.

9The only evidence before the Tribunal on this motion is the affidavit of one of the Appellants, Chantelle Leslie. It is untested by cross-examination and unsupported by documentation.

10Although the deponent alleges in paragraph 27 of the affidavit that the claim of the Appellants “involves how we were discriminated against in relation of [sic] other dairy farmers”, the affidavit evidence does not disclose the nature of the disability.

11The Tribunal will not be able to determine the scope of its jurisdiction to provide relief and remedies, if any, under the OHRC until it has held a full hearing, heard all the evidence and reviewed all the supporting documentation.

12It is only then that the Tribunal will be in a position to consider the applicability of OHRC considerations to the proven facts in these appeals.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

13In their Notice of Motion, the Appellant request that the Tribunal order the Respondents “to provide the disclosure requested by the Appellants in a timely manner”. Schedule “A” to the Appellants’ Factum contains a list of 20 documents to be disclosed.

14In paragraphs 25 and 26 of Chantelle Leslie’s affidavit, she depones that her counsel has requested full disclosure from the Respondents and that disclosure has been refused. She further states that “There is significant evidence in the files of the Respondents, particularly relating to our human rights claim for discrimination with respect to disability “.

15The Appellants make no attempt to provide evidence as to why each requested document is relevant to their claim.

16The Respondents state in their Factum that the Appellants’ request for disclosure is a classic fishing expedition. I agree.

17The Appellants’ request for disclosure is denied without prejudice to the Appellants seeking further disclosure of relevant documents based on a proper evidentiary basis.