Charles Stephen Gingerich (RE), 2026 ONAFRAAT 11

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

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

Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL

APPEAL: Charles Stephen Gingerich (RE)

Charles Stephen Gingerich (RE) 2026 ONAFRAAT 11

STATUTE: Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993

HEARING: April 21, 2026

DATE OF DECISION: 29 April 2026

015Gingerich2026

NEUTRAL CITATION: 2026 ONAFRAAT 11

IN THE MATTER OF the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 21, AS AMENDED;

AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) by Charles Stephen Gingerich of Zurich, Ontario pursuant to Section 22(1) of the Farm Registration and Farm Organization Funding Act.

Heard: April 21, 2026, via Zoom

Before: Tricia Schouten, Vice-Chair, and Judy Dirksen, Member

Parties Present: Charles Stephen Gingerich, Applicant Eric Davis, Counsel for the Applicant Jasmeen Bhangu, Articling Student Paul Bootsma, CFFO – Observing

DECISION

Background

[1]. The Applicant, Charles Stephen Gingerich, brought an Application pursuant to section 22(1) of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 (the “Act”) for an order waiving the requirements that he obtain a farming business registration number and make the prescribed payment to a farm organization on the basis of his religious conviction and belief.

[2]. In the absence of the completion of the “Bishop Affirmation” contained in the Application, the Tribunal ordered a hearing of the Application in accordance with the Act.

[3]. The hearing was held virtually on April 21, 2026.

[4]. The three accredited farm organizations, namely the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), the National Farmers Union Ontario (NFU-O) and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO), were notified of the Application. None of the said organizations submitted any objections to the Application.

The Evidence

[5]. Mr. Gingerich and his wife own and farm the property municipally identified as 73171 Bronson Line, Zurich, Ontario (“the Farm Property”). He cash crops the Farm Property with alternating crops of wheat, corn and beans. In addition, he raises hogs on a custom basis for his neighbour. He has been operating in this manner since 2015, and does report income to Canada Revenue Agency in connection with the farming operation.

[6]. Since 2015, he has been a member of the CFFO. Late in 2025, he determined that his religious beliefs were such that he objected to obtaining a farming business registration number and to making payment to an accredited farm organization.

[7]. Mr. Gingerich testified that he is a member of the Independent Holiness Church. It is a small denomination structured along Methodist lines. He has been a member of that denomination since 2021. He is an ordained clergy within that denomination.

[8]. Mr. Gingerich testified that his religious conviction is rooted in two religious principles: “Sphere Sovereignty” and “Impartiality”.

[9]. The principle of “Sphere Sovereignty” defines the limits and roles of societal institutions (or life spheres) such as state, family, church and industry. Each sphere is created by God and subject to His authority and one is not to encroach upon another’s authority. Cog wheels engage one such that there is mutual interaction between the spheres. If one sphere encroaches onto another sphere, there is a jerk which breaks the cog upon cog interaction thereby interfering with the whole.

[10]. Mr. Gingerich testified that “Sphere Sovereignty” was historically understood by the Christian Church during the first to fourth centuries. It was recovered and further developed by Dr. Abraham Kuyper, a Dutch theologian in the late 1800’s. He entered as evidence the wording of a speech by Dr. Kuyper from October 20, 1880, and reviewed the use of the term “Calvinist” rather than “Christian”.

[11]. Mr. Gingerich testified that the principle of “Impartiality” is a moral principle which appears numerous times in scripture, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It arises from the fundamental principle that God is impartial. The principal of “Impartiality” tolerates no hierarchy or aristocracy.

[12]. Mr. Gingerich entered as evidence an excerpt from “Stone Lectures” of Dr. Kuyper in 1898. He highlighted the Calvanistic position of man’s relation to man, most importantly being that Calvanism tolerates no aristocracy. Every man should be recognized and respected simply because he is a man.

[13]. Mr. Gingerich also entered as evidence text from a publication by John Christian Wenger titled “Separated Unto God” dated 1955. He highlighted portions of the publication which embrace simplicity and practical indifference. He testified that being compelled to be involved in a lobby organization compromises his ability to embrace utter simplicity and practical indifference.

[14]. Mr. Gingerich entered as evidence a letter dated March 11, 2026, from the Independent Holiness Church signed by “Rev. R.E. Votary, Presiding Bishop”. The letter does not specifically reference the principles upon which Mr. Gingerich is applying for the exemption. It does however quote a section of its “Doctrine and Discipline” which provides as follows: “We as a church go on record as respecting personal convictions that are not contrary to The Word of God, and suggest that no reproach be made upon the same.". The letter concludes with the author asking that the reader consider Mr. Gingerich’s personal stand as personal convictions founded upon the Word of God, fully supported by the Holiness Church denomination.

[15]. Mr. Gingerich testified that his religious convictions rooted in “Sphere Sovereignty” and “Impartiality” prevent him from supporting any of the accredited farm organizations. They are hierarchical and aristocratic in nature, primarily with respect to supply management. He does not morally, nor does he wish to financially support the lobbying which they do, most particularly with respect to the supply management programs and the risk management programs.

[16]. He cannot in good conscience be a part of organizations that advocate for policies that are impartial in nature – that invest economic privilege in a few. He testified that supply management for example, favours industry insiders to the extent that it is nearly impossible for industry outsiders to enter the industry. The principal of “Impartiality” would dictate that everyone who wants to participate in production in the supply management sector would be given equal opportunity to do so.

[17]. Mr. Gingerich testified that risk management programs offend “Sphere Sovereignty”. They are government funded programs that subsidize agricultural production. The state sphere should not be interfering in this manner. It goes beyond the legitimate mandate of the state.

[18]. Mr. Gingerich testified that he has had these convictions and beliefs for many years, but they have become more urgent and clear in the past three years due to deeper reflection on scripture and the application of faith to his daily life.

[19]. A copy of the Application was sent to the OFA, the NFU-O and the CFFO. None of these organizations opposed the Application. The CFFO was present at the hearing but did not bring any evidence. It did make closing arguments.

[20]. The CFFO’s closing arguments did not oppose the Application. Rather, the CFFO noted that Mr. Gingerich was previously a member of the CFFO. The CFFO hopes to have further communications with Mr. Gingerich in order to address possible misunderstandings with respect to the CFFO’s principles.

The Law

[21]. The applicable sections of the Act are as follows:

Religious objection, individual

22 (1) If an individual carries on a farming business and objects to obtaining a farming business registration number or to making payment to an accredited farm organization because of his or her religious conviction or belief, the individual may apply to the Tribunal for an order that the requirement to obtain a farming business registration number or to make the payment be waived.

Order of Tribunal

22 (6) If the Tribunal is satisfied that an individual referred to in subsection (1), (2) or (3) objects to obtaining a farming business registration number or making payment to an accredited farm organization because of his or her sincerely held religious conviction or belief, it shall order that the requirement to obtain a farming business registration number or to make the payment be waived.

[22]. The test for a religious exemption pursuant to section 22 of the Act has now been established in James Morin (Re), 2019 ONAFRAAT 22 as follows:

1. Are the Applicant’s convictions and beliefs genuinely held?
2. Are the Applicant’s convictions and beliefs religious?
3. Are the Applicant’s convictions and beliefs the actual cause of the objection to making a payment to a farm organization or filing a farm business registration form?

Analysis

Convictions and Beliefs Genuinely Held

[23]. The test is a subjective one. The test is not based on whether the convictions and beliefs are right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable. Rather, the test is whether the individual genuinely holds the beliefs.

[24]. It is clear from Mr. Gingerich’s testimony that his convictions and beliefs are genuinely held. The Tribunal has no doubt that he is sincere and passionate with respect to those beliefs.

Convictions and Beliefs are Religious

[25]. James Morin (Re) held that a religion may be personal and need not be tied to a religious sect, but that the beliefs must be religious in essence and not philosophical or political. The Applicant has the onus of proving that the religious beliefs are the basis of the Application.

[26]. Mr. Gingerich has satisfied the Tribunal that the convictions and beliefs upon which the Application is based are religious. Although the letter provided by the Independent Holiness Church does not specifically reference the principles of “Sphere Sovereignty” and “Impartiality”, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. Gingerich’s convictions and beliefs are founded upon religious principles.

Convictions and Beliefs the Actual Cause of the Objection

[27]. Not once did Mr. Gingerich reference the cost of the payment to be made to the farm organization. Nor did he ever reference the effort or process of having to register with an accredited farm organization. Rather, he testified that his religious convictions rooted in “Sphere Sovereignty” and “Impartiality” prevent him from supporting any of the accredited farm organizations.

[28]. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s convictions and beliefs are the actual cause of the objection to obtaining a farm business registration number and to making a payment to an accredited farm organization.

Order

[29]. The Tribunal orders that the Application brought by Charles Stephen Gingerich for an Order under section 22(1) of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, to waive the requirement that he obtain a farm business registration number and make a payment to an accredited farm organization on the basis of his religious conviction or belief be granted.

[30]. This Order takes effect immediately and shall remain in force so long as Charles Stephen Gingerich holds the beliefs as described herein.

DATED at Richmond, Ontario this 29th day of April, 2026.

This document is also available in French. Please contact the Tribunal at 519-826-3433 or by email at AFRAAT@ontario.ca to request a copy in French.

Ce document est également disponible en français. Veuillez contacter le tribunal au 519 826-3433 ou par courriel à AFRAAT@ontario.ca pour demander une copie en français.