Tribunal digs in its heels over dairy quota policy

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

by SUSAN MANN

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal won’t review its decision earlier this year to deny a former dairy farmer an exemption from a Dairy Farmers of Ontario policy that reduced the amount he received from his the sale of his quota by thousands of dollars.

The Tribunal released the ruling Wednesday in the case involving Paul McDougall of Smithville.

His lawyer Don Good says he doesn’t anticipate McDougall will appeal the decision.

McDougall sold his quota and herd in the spring, 2008 to care for his wife and farming partner, Maryanne, who had cancer and has since died. As part of the transaction, Dairy Farmers retained 7.186 kilograms of quota valued at the time of the sale at $232,231.96.

Under the previous transfer assessment policy, in effect from November, 2006 until July, 2009, Dairy Farmers redistributed the retained quota from farmers selling it and exiting the industry to existing producers. The last 10 kilograms of the producer’s quota were exempt from the transfer assessment.

McDougall sought an exemption to the 15 per cent quota transfer assessment last spring. Dairy Farmers denied both his request for special consideration and for reconsideration.

He appealed to the Tribunal, which released its decision July 6 denying his request for an exemption to the policy. Last month, McDougall asked for a review of the Tribunal’s decision and that it be overturned.

Good says he’s disappointed in the decision. The facts in the McDougall case were almost identical to ones in another situation where the Tribunal agreed the farmer, Paul Haley, should get an exemption. “You can’t read Haleyview and you can’t read McDougall and come to any rational basis why one person got the money and the other person didn’t.”

In his decision to deny the request, however, John O’Kane, Tribunal vice-chair, noted that the Tribunal mentioned in several assessment cases that no set of established legal principles had emerged and each case “has turned on its own unique facts.” He agreed.

O’Kane also wasn’t convinced a fuller review was needed because of possible material errors of law.

Good had argued the Tribunal panel misapplied the law from previous assessment exemption cases. BF