Message from the Chair
I am pleased to present the Annual Report of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) and the Board of Negotiation (BON) for the year ending March 31, 2017. The report focuses on the Tribunal’s achievements for the year.
The Tribunal serves as the adjudicative body for those who feel aggrieved by decisions made under various legislation under the auspices of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The BON serves as the body that negotiates settlements between parties under the provisions of section 172 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Tribunal continues to work hard to carry out its adjudicative mandate and achieve its goals. We recognize the need to provide a fair and effective appeal mechanism to clients who come before us, and have endeavoured to meet clients’ needs and expectations in the past year. No matters were brought to the BON in 2016-17.
The Tribunal continues to use a client survey to obtain feedback on the services it provides. The results of the survey assist the Tribunal in its ongoing efforts to improve the delivery of its services, and to evaluate the Tribunal’s performance. I am pleased to report that the ratings provided by clients in the key areas of services provided by the Tribunal remain at high levels.
On behalf of the Tribunal members, I look forward to continuing to serve the agriculture and food sectors, as well as rural communities, throughout Ontario.
Kirk Walstedt, Chair
THE AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) is an adjudicative agency of the Ontario government where decisions made by other bodies can be appealed or where applications and complaints can be heard pursuant to legislation that authorizes the Tribunal to hear those matters. All Tribunal members also serve on the Board of Negotiation (BON) established under section 172 of the Environmental Protection Act. The Chair and one Vice-Chair of the Tribunal are also appointed as part-time members and Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.
All members are part time per diem appointees appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Tribunal’s hearing room and offices are located in the Government Building at 1 Stone Road West, Guelph. The Tribunal also conducts hearings throughout Ontario, as necessary, to improve its accessibility to all parties that appear before it.
MANDATE OF TRIBUNAL
Constituted under Section 14 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, the mandate of the Tribunal is to provide an independent, accessible avenue of appeal on a variety of agricultural issues under the following provincial statutes and have them heard by an impartial and knowledgeable tribunal: Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002; the Agricultural Products Insurance Act, 1996; Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act;
the Animals for Research Act; the Animal Health Act, 2009; the Assessment Act; the Beef Cattle Marketing Act; the Commodity Board Members Act; the Drainage Act; the Farm Implements Act; the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993; the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001; the Grains Act; the Livestock Community Sales Act; the Livestock and Livestock Products Act; the Livestock Medicines Act; and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act (for appeals of decisions made under the Farm Products Marketing Act and Milk Act).
MISSION STATEMENT OF TRIBUNAL
To provide a fair and impartial hearing and decision process for those who are aggrieved by a direction, policy, order or decision, or who require the resolution of a dispute pursuant to legislation that falls under the mandate of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.
MANDATE OF THE BOARD OF NEGOTIATION
Established under the authority of the Environmental Protection Act, the mandate of the BON is to negotiate a settlement of a claim where a contaminant is causing or has caused injury or damage to livestock or to crops, trees or other vegetation. Where a claimant has requested an investigation by the Minister of the Environment and a report is filed, and where the claimant and the person responsible for the injury or damage are not able to reach a settlement of the claim, either party may refer the matter to the BON for settlement. Settlements negotiated by the BON are non-binding.
MISSION STATEMENT OF BOARD OF NEGOTIATON
To provide a fair and impartial process for the negotiation of a settlement of claim where a party has served a notice of negotiation upon the Board of Negotiation in accordance with section 172 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Tribunal values:
- Finding facts from evidence, leading to clearly reasoned and expressed decisions.
- Respect and consideration.
- Fairness and accessibility.
- Continuous professional development.
- Adherence to principles of the adjudicative process.
- Endeavouring to reach consensus in the decision-making process.
What can be Appealed to the Tribunal?
Any order, direction, decision or policy of the local marketing boards or of a Director made under the Farm Products Marketing Act or the Milk Act may be appealed to the Tribunal. Regulations of commodity boards may also be appealed to the Tribunal. Orders, directions or decisions of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission that apply specifically to the aggrieved person, a group of persons of which the aggrieved person is a member or with respect to a particular dispute or incident involving the aggrieved person can also be appealed to the Tribunal. However, Commission regulations, and policies, orders, directions or decisions of the Commission that are of general application, are not appealable to the Tribunal.
A producer or commodity board who is of the opinion that a member of the commodity board has contravened the Commodity Board Members Act may apply to the Tribunal to determine whether or not the member has contravened the Act.
A decision that results in the refusal to issue a licence, the refusal to renew a licence, or the suspension or revocation of a licence issued under the Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act, the Animals For Research Act, the Animal Health Act, 2009, the Grains Act, the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001, the Livestock Community Sales Act, the Livestock and Livestock Products Act, and the Livestock Medicines Act can be appealed to the Tribunal. Under the Beef Cattle Marketing Act, the Tribunal can hear appeals from decisions of a Director to not include or remove plants from a list of plants that comply with the Act and regulations.
Under the Drainage Act, the Tribunal's jurisdiction ranges from complaints about assessments and allowances, to requests for modification of the drainage works including complaints of quality of construction and directing a municipal council to proceed with drainage works after a petition for drainage has been filed. Its powers relate more to the operational or remedial provisions of the Act.
Under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, the Tribunal accredits general farm organizations; determines the eligibility of a Francophone farm organization to receive special funding, and decides on applications for exemption from registration and/or payment as required by the Act where individuals or farm businesses object to payment and/or registration because these actions would be in contravention of their genuinely held religious convictions and/or beliefs.
Under the Assessment Act, the Tribunal hears appeals regarding the eligibility of agricultural properties for the farm property class designation.
Under the Agricultural Products Insurance Act, 1996, formerly the Crop Insurance Act, the Tribunal has the mandate to resolve all disputes arising out of the adjustment of loss under contracts of insurance between AgriCorp and an insured person, provided the person has filed an appeal within the time allowed. It can also rule on whether or not a person qualifies for a contract of insurance, if AgriCorp has denied coverage.
The Tribunal hears applications and appeals arising out of the application of the Farm Implements Act. Applications may arise from disputes between manufacturers or distributors and dealers of farm equipment, or between an end buyer and a dealer, distributor, or manufacturer. Appeals may also arise from a decision of a Director related to the registration of a dealer or distributor.
The Tribunal has the authority to hear complaints and applications under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002. These may involve requests for access to employees on properties controlled by the employer or complaints regarding non-compliance with the Act.
Who can Appeal to the Tribunal?
An appellant can be a landowner, a producer, a processor, a consumer, an employee, a transporter, a dealer, a manufacturer, a distributor, an unincorporated association or any other person or group of individuals who has a statutory right to appeal or make application to the Tribunal.
Powers of the Minister
Within 30 days after receipt by the Minister of a decision of the Tribunal made under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act (arising from appeals of decisions made under the Farm Products Marketing Act or the Milk Act) and the reasons therefore, if any, or within such longer period as may be determined by the Minister within such 30-day period, the Minister may:
- confirm, vary or rescind the whole or any part of the decision;
- substitute for the decision of the Tribunal such decision as the Minister considers appropriate; or
- by notice to the Tribunal, require the Tribunal to hold a new hearing of the whole or any part of the matter appealed to the Tribunal and reconsider its decision.
Powers of the Courts
Decisions of the Tribunal with respect to licensing issues under the Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act, the Animals For Research Act, the Beef Cattle Marketing Act, the Grains Act, the Livestock Community Sales Act, the Livestock and Livestock Products Act and the Livestock Medicines Act may be appealed to the Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) in accordance with the rules of the Court. Decisions of the Tribunal under the Assessment Act and the Farm Implements Act may be appealed to Divisional Court on matters of law only. There are also limited appeals to the Referee under the Drainage Act. All decisions of the Tribunal may be subject to judicial review.
2016-17 Highlights - Tribunal
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
(Appeals of Decisions made under Farm Products Marketing Act or Milk Act)
In 2016-17, the Tribunal received a total of 5 appeals under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act. Currently, three are active appeals, one appeal is on hold and one appeal was withdrawn.
Number of appeals by commodity in 2016-17 is as follows:
Agricultural Products Insurance Act, 1996
No appeals were received by the Tribunal under this Act, formerly the Crop Insurance Act, in 2016-17.
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993
The Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 established a system which provides general farm organizations with a reliable source of funding. Under the Act, farm businesses with a gross farm income of $7,000 per annum or higher are required to register and to direct an annual registration fee to a farm organization that is accredited under the Act. Provision is also made for individuals to be granted exemptions from registering and/or making payment under the Act on the basis of religious beliefs and convictions.
In 2016-17, the Tribunal received 93 applications for a religious exemption under the Act. Each valid application was forwarded to the accredited farm organizations and reviewed by the Tribunal. When, after review of an application, it is not clear to the Tribunal that an application is based on a genuinely held religious belief or conviction, the Tribunal schedules a hearing. The Tribunal also holds a hearing if there is an objection by one of the accredited farm organizations. No hearings were held in 2016-17.
The Tribunal granted a total of 88 religious exemptions. Three applicants did not meet the application criteria as their gross farm income was less than $7,000, and two applications were denied.
Under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, the Tribunal is also required to accredit general farm organizations and determine the eligibility of a Francophone farm organization to receive special funding every three years.
In 2015-16, the Tribunal held reaccreditation hearings for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union – Ontario under Section 4(2) of the Act. All three organizations were reaccredited for a three year period.
The Tribunal provides a readily accessible forum for appeals and applications under the Drainage Act. Matters heard include appeals pertaining to the engineer’s report and assessments under sections 48 and 54 of the Act; appeals pertaining to the quality of the construction of a drainage works under section 64 of the Act; appeals from decisions of a Municipal Council to not proceed with a petition for drainage works, or where the municipality has not decided within 30 days after the filing of a petition to proceed with a drainage works under Section 5 of the Act; and applications to correct an error in an engineer’s report or to vary assessments under sections 58(4) and 76 of the Act.
Tribunal hearings are held throughout Ontario, usually in the municipal office of the municipality where the appeal is filed. The Tribunal’s practice is to hold a single hearing for all appeals made with respect to a single drainage works. Typically, there is more than one appellant on drainage appeals.
In 2016-17, the Tribunal held 18 drainage hearings. In total, 20 decisions were released. Decisions are tracked in the fiscal year they are released and some hearings may have more than one decision released in relation to one matter. Of those decisions, nine were from appeals held in the previous fiscal year Three matters from the previous fiscal year have been held in abeyance.
Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002
The purpose of this Act is to protect the rights of agricultural employees while having regard to the unique characteristics of agriculture, including, but not limited to, its seasonal nature, its sensitivity to time and climate, the perishability of agricultural products and the need to protect animal and plant life.
These rights include the right to form or join an employees’ association; the right to participate in the lawful activities of an employees’ association; the right to assemble; the right to make representations to their employers, through an employees’ association, respecting the terms and conditions of their employment; and the right to protection against interference, coercion and discrimination in the exercise of their rights.
The Tribunal has the authority to hear complaints and applications under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA). These may involve requests for access to employees on properties controlled by the employer or complaints regarding non-compliance with the Act.
In March of 2016, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and ten former employees of MedReleaf Corp filed complaints with the Tribunal alleging that MedReleaf was in contravention of the AEPA. Constitutional issues related to the legislation were also raised by the complainants. This matter is ongoing.
The Tribunal hears appeals referred to it by the Assessment Review Board regarding the eligibility of properties for the farm property class tax rate. Properties which receive the farm property class are assessed at up to 25% of the residential tax rate.
In 2016-17, the Tribunal heard 40 farm property class appeals over five separate hearing days. Of those, 25 were granted and 15 denied.
Farm Implements Act
No appeals were received under this statute in 2016-17.
Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001
One appeal was received by the Tribunal under this statute in 2016-17.
Summary of Hearings Held/Applications Considered under Active Statutes
|# of Hearings Held/Applications Considered|
|Agricultural Products Insurance Act||0||0||0||0|
|Farm Implements Act||0||0||1||1|
|Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act – Accreditation & Special Funding||0||3||1||0|
|Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act – Religious Exemptions||93||104||103||103|
|Food Safety & Quality Act||1||0||1||0|
|Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act||0||4||6||2|
Recent History of Applications for Religious Exemption
|Approved after Hearing||0||0||0||1|
2016-17 Highlights – Board of Negotiation
No parties asked to appear before the BON in 2016-17.
The Tribunal and the BON operate under a budget allocated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and as such do not have their own audited financial statements. The Tribunal and BON resource requirements are incorporated under the ministry’s business plan.
|Transportation & Communications||35, 500||39, 829||(4, 329)||33, 461|
|Services||255, 000||249, 034||5, 966||242, 754|
|Supplies||1, 500||3, 547||(2, 047)||488|
|Total Expenditures||$292, 000||$292, 410||($410)||$276, 703|
The ministry has three full-time employees that support and provide services to the Tribunal and BON. The ministry provides administrative and financial support through the Business Services Branch, Research and Corporate Services Division. Legal services to the Tribunal and BON are provided by the Ministry of Attorney General through the Legal Services Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
- Efficient decision making and timely release of decisions.
The Tribunal’s target is to release decisions within 30 days of completion of a hearing with the exception of decisions under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act which has a decision timeline of 20 days from the completion of a hearing.
- Confidence in Tribunal by participants in the appeal process.
The Tribunal’s target is to achieve an overall client satisfaction rate of 80%.
1. Timeliness for Releasing Written Decisions after Hearings
In the past three fiscal years, there have been no decisions required under the Agricultural Products Insurance Act (Ontario), 1996. There have not been any decisions rendered under the Farm Implements Act and Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001 in the past two fiscal years. The decisions released in 2014-15 for both of those Acts were released in under 30 days.
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act
|Fiscal||Average Days to Release Decision||Range of days||Number/percent
over 20 days
|2015-16||18||2 - 34||1/4 (25%)|
|2014-15||25||6 - 104||1/6 (17%)|
Assessment Act (Farm Property Class)
|Fiscal||Average Days to Release Decision||Range of days||Number/percent over 30 days|
|2016-17||24||11 – 47||11/40 (28%)|
|2015-16||24||13 - 34||6/35 (17%)|
|2014-15||20||17 - 52||1/18 (5.5%)|
|Fiscal||Average Days to Release Decision||Range of days||Number/percent over 30 days|
|2016-17||28||1 – 58||5/17 (36%)|
|2015-16||40||8 – 147||6/14 (43%)|
|2014-15||34||4 – 143||4/12 (33%)|
Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 – Accreditation & Religious Exemptions
|Fiscal||Average Days to Release Decision||Range of days||Number/percent over 30 days|
|2016-17||12||3 – 46||4/88 (0.05%)|
|2015-16||15||14 - 15||0/3 (0%)|
|2013-14||63||3 – 122||1/2 (50%)|
Note: For performance tracking purposes, the date a decision is released is used to designate the fiscal year in which it is tracked, rather than the date of the hearing.
2. Client Satisfaction
As part of the Tribunal’s efforts to improve the delivery of its services, a client survey is offered to all clients who come before the Tribunal. The survey focuses on four key areas – access to information from the Tribunal, the appeal process, the hearing process and the decision. The results from the client survey are captured in the performance measures section below and are used to evaluate the performance of the Tribunal considering its function, commitments and strategies. The Tribunal and BON target is to achieve an overall 80% client satisfaction rate.
|Tribunal Survey Results||2016||2015||2014|
|Overall Satisfaction Rate – key questions *||83%||91.7%||97.1%|
|Number of Questions with Greater than 80% Satisfaction||17/20||20/20||20/20|
* Average of 20 survey questions with rating scale of very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied.
3. Performance Measures, Targets and Analysis
Access to Information
50% of survey respondents who accessed the Tribunal’s website were either satisfied or very satisfied with the information found on the website, while 20% were dissatisfied with the information on the website. An additional 5% of respondents were neutral on this issue. Fifty-five percent of respondents who accessed the website were either satisfied or very satisfied that the information on the website was easy to find, while 15% were dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s information on this point. Twenty-five percent of the respondents indicated the question about the Tribunal’s website was not applicable to them, suggesting those respondents did not use the Tribunal’s website. Comments received indicate that some clients were not aware of the existence of the website.
Eighty-five percent of respondents rated the response time of staff to information requests as neutral or higher with the same percentage of the respondents indicating they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the response time of staff.
Ninety percent of respondents rated the response time for the acknowledgement of their appeal as neutral or higher, with 80% of respondents either being satisfied or very satisfied with the response time. Eighty-five percent of respondents indicated they were neutral to very satisfied with the selection of hearing dates, with 70% indicating they were either satisfied or very satisfied on this point.
Overall, respondents were satisfied with the hearing process provided by the Tribunal.
Seventy percent of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the location of Tribunal hearings, and 60% of those who responded to the question were satisfied to very satisfied that the location accommodated persons with disabilities.
Seventy percent of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the process and timing for the exchange of hearing documents between parties in advance of the hearing, which, for the second year in a row, is down considerably from 2014-15 when 95.7% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied on this point. Eighty-five percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the information about the hearing process outlined by the Chair at the start of the hearing, with 80% being satisfied and very satisfied with the information provided by Tribunal staff in advance of the hearing.
Seventy-five percent of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the industry specific knowledge displayed by the panel and 85% of respondents were also satisfied or very satisfied by the types of question asked by the panel. Eighty percent of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the impartiality displayed by panel members at the hearing; 85% of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the respect and consideration for participants displayed by the panel at the hearing, and 85% of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the overall conduct of those in attendance at the hearing.
Ninety percent of respondents were neutral to very satisfied with the reasoning provided in the Tribunal’s decisions with 75% of respondents being either satisfied or very satisfied with the reasoning provided in the decision. Eighty-five percent of respondents were neutral to very satisfied that the hearing decision reflected the evidence presented at the hearing while 70% were satisfied or very satisfied on this point. However, 15% of respondents were very dissatisfied on this point. Ninety-five percent of respondents were neutral to very satisfied with the impartiality of the panel as reflected in the decision, with 85% of respondents being either satisfied or very satisfied on this point. Five percent of respondents indicated they were dissatisfied on this point.
The Tribunal’s target is to release decisions within 30 days of completion of a hearing [20 days for decisions under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act (MAFRA Act)]. During the 2016-17 fiscal year, no decisions were released with regard to this Act.
For all hearing decisions issued under Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act (FRFOF Act) in 2016-17, all decisions were issued within 15 days of the completion of the hearing.
With respect to farm property class hearings held under the Assessment Act, 40 hearings were held over five days in 2016-17 compared to 35 held on one day in 2015-16. On average, it took 24 days to release a decision with 73% being released in under 30 days.
Ninety percent of respondents were neutral to very satisfied with the timeliness of the release of Tribunal decisions in 2016-17, with 80% of respondents being either satisfied or very satisfied on this point.
In response to the question about overall satisfaction with the Tribunal’s appeal process, 80% of survey respondents were neutral to very satisfied with the Tribunal’s appeal process, with 75% of respondents being satisfied and very satisfied with the appeal process. Eight percent of respondents indicated they were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s appeal process.
4. Compliance with Governance and Public Accountability
The Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 (ATAGAA) came into force (in part) on April 7, 2010. The purpose of the ATAGAA is to ensure that adjudicative tribunals are accountable, transparent and efficient in their operations by having in place governance and public accountability documents which include a Memorandum of Understanding, Business Plan and Annual Report; and a Mandate and Mission Statement, Consultation Policy, Service Standard Policy, Ethics Plan and Member Accountability Framework by April 1, 2012. The Tribunal met those requirements.
In accordance with ATAGAA, the Tribunal and Board of Negotiation reviewed their public accountability documents in November of 2015 to determine whether they required any amendments. The Tribunal and Board of Negotiation were satisfied with the documents as written.
For the period April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017, Maurice Janisse and Arnold Strub were reappointed to the Tribunal and Board of Negotiation. In addition, during this period the following new members were appointed for an initial two year term: Patricia Meehan and John Wilson. Replacements continue to be sought for members whose term expired during the previous fiscal year and the current fiscal year.
2016 – 2017 MEMBERSHIP
|WALSTEDT, KIRK WARREN||Lawyer||03-Nov-2004 –
|$716 PER DIEM||MAIDSTONE|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||O'KANE, JOHN L.||Lawyer||11-Apr-2006 –
|$716 PER DIEM||COLLINGWOOD|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||MEEHAN, PATRICIA||Lawyer||14-Sep-2016 –
|$716 PER DIEM||SUDBURY|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||BENDA, STAN||Lawyer||20-Nov-2013 –
|$716 PER DIEM||TORONTO|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||WALKER, GLENN C.||Lawyer||20-Nov-2013 –
|$716 PER DIEM||RIDGETOWN|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||LOMBARDI, PAULA||Lawyer||10-Dec-2008 –
|$716 PER DIEM||LONDON|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||HEWITT, JEFFREY||Lawyer||17-Dec-2013 –
|$716 PER DIEM||TECUMSEH|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||WILSON, JOHN ROBERT||Lawyer||22-Feb-2017 –
|$716 PER DIEM||LUCKNOW|
|VICE-CHAIR (PART-TIME)||MCNEELY, HAROLD||Lawyer||04-May-2011 –
|$716 PER DIEM||OTTAWA|
|SMELSKI, RICHARD||Horticultural Producer and
|$429 PER DIEM||SHAKESPEARE|
|JUDD, SARAH||Dairy farmer and Fruit grower||22-Jul-2015 –
|$429 PER DIEM||SIMCOE|
|STULP, FRED||Cash crop farmer||22-Jul-2015 –
|$429 PER DIEM||ARISS|
|HOLLING, LEE||General agriculture||10-Feb-2016 –
|$429 PER DIEM||WALLACEBURG|
|O'CONNOR, RON||Retired poultry farmer||10-Feb-2016 –
|$429 PER DIEM||WASAGA BEACH|
|$429 PER DIEM||WINGHAM|
|JOHN ANDREW (ANDY)|
|MOUSSEAU, AUSTIN (TIM)||Certified Engineering Technician||17-Jun-2009 –
|$429 PER DIEM||SOUTH WOODSLEE|
|JANISSE, MAURICE||Cash crop farmer||22-Oct-2014 –
|$429 PER DIEM||ST. JOACHIM|
|STRUB, ARNOLD||Business consultant; Former vegetable processor||22-Oct-2014 –
|$429 PER DIEM||DUNDAS|
|DRIES, EDWARD||Engineer (retired)||23-Oct-2013 – 25-Apr-2019||$716 PER DIEM||CHATHAM|
For more information:
Toll Free: 1-888-466-2372 ext. 519-826-3433