Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales
1 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario, N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
1 Stone Road West Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Courriel: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL: Ronald Van Loon and Sandy Lane Farms Inc. v DFO (RE) [MOTION ON PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS]
Ronald Van Loon and Sandy Lane Farms Inc. v DFO (RE) [MOTION ON PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS] 2024 ONAFRAAT 07
STATUTE: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
HEARING: In Writing
DATE OF DECISION: March 13, 2024
006VanLoon23
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2024 ONAFRAAT 07
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 Ronald Van Loon and Sandy Lane Farms Inc. regarding a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario dated July 28, 2023.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a motion held pursuant to Rule 30 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure
BETWEEN:
Ronald Van Loon and Sandy Lane Farms Inc. Appellants
– and –
Dairy Farmers of Ontario Respondent
Self-Represented
Represented by Geoffrey P. Spurr
Heard In Writing
Before: Glenn C. Walker, Chair
MOTION DECISION
BACKGROUND
The Appellants brought a motion for production of documents dated December 29, 2023, pursuant to Rule 30 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The motion was returnable on January 12, 2024.
On February 1, 2024, that motion was dismissed without prejudice because the Appellants provided no affidavit evidence, as required by Rule 30.03(v), to provide the Tribunal with any factual context to enable it to determine the relevancy of the documentation requested to the remaining issues before the Tribunal.
The Appellants have now brought a second motion for production with respect to the two remaining issues before the Tribunal which are the removal of Paul Legault from picking up milk at the Appellants’ farm (“Issue 1”) and the replacement of SD&G as milk transporter for the Appellants’ farm (“Issue 2”).
In connection with the motion the Appellants have filed a Notice of Motion and “Affidavit” and the Respondent has filed a Responding Motion Record.
The Appellants seek the following disclosure:
a. A copy of the contract between Dairy Farmers of Ontario (“DFO”) and SD&G Transport;
b. GPS records showing time of arrival and departure of milk transport on the Appellants’ farm for all pickups from January 4, 2023 – December 23, 2023;
c. All correspondence with SD&G milk transport regarding this case;
d. Disclosure from DFO of information relating to BTMG Paul Legault’s expulsion from Lactalis, Winchester in the last three years including the most current incident April 2023.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Before dealing with the requests made by the Appellants, I will address the “Affidavit” filed by the Appellants. This document which purports to be the “Affidavit of Aimee Norman sworn February 7, 2024” is not an affidavit. It is neither sworn nor affirmed before a commissioner as required by law.
Rule 30.03(v) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires that a motion be supported by an affidavit; however, Rule 2 also allows the Tribunal to dispense with compliance with the rules.
I have read the document and will dispense with compliance with Rule 30.03(v) and will accept the submissions set out in the Appellants’ Notice of Motion. I also find that there is nothing in the purported affidavit that is relevant to the issues before me.
CONTRACT
The Appellants state that they need this contract to see the responsibilities and obligations of the transporter in regard to on-farm milk pick-up and that this relates to Issue 2, that is the replacement of the milk transporter.
DFO argues that the lis between the parties results from the undertaking which the Appellants gave to DFO to permit the continuation of the pick-up of milk from Sandy Lane Farm.
I disagree. The cause of the dispute was the altercation that took place between Mr. Van Loon and Paul Legault on January 4, 2023, and the undertaking was merely a ramification of that dispute.
The Appellants seek to ban Paul Legault unconditionally from their farm or, as it were to appear, in the alternative, force DFO to provide them with a different milk transporter.
The test for disclosure is arguable relevance. The threshold for disclosure is not a very high one but there must be some relevance to the issues before the Tribunal.1
I see no relevance between this document and Issue 2 and decline to order its disclosure.
GPS RECORDS
The Appellants state that they wish to illustrate the timelines when the milk transporter arrives and departs Sandy Lane Farm and that this is relevant to Issue 2.
In the previous Motion for Disclosure, the Appellants in their Reply document2 rescinded this request. Unless they have shown good reason why this request should now be considered, which they have not, it should not be considered.
In any event, I find that this request is not relevant to the remaining issues and is simply a fishing expedition. This request is denied.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DFO AND SD&G
The Appellants state that they need to see this correspondence to understand why the undertaking stayed in place for 7 months after Paul Legault last attended their farm on April 22, 2023. They argue that it is relevant to Issue 2.
This request has no relevance to Issue 2, the replacement of the milk transporter, and again is a fishing expedition. This request is denied.
PAUL LEGAULT’S EXPULSION FROM LACTALIS
The Appellants argue that this request is relevant to Issue 1 and will provide evidence of Paul Legault’s character and behaviour.
As