|
Evidence - Expert Evidence - General. Ontario Association of Chicken Processors v. Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chicken Commission
In Ontario Association of Chicken Processors v. Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chicken Commission (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a JR, this quashing a "decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal ... upholding a decision of the respondent Ontario Broiler Hatching & Egg Commission (the “Commission” or “OBHECC”) respecting a ‘Cost of Production Formula” (“COPF”) used to set prices for chicks sold to chicken farmers".
Here the court comments on changing attitudes to expert evidence over time:[11] Long gone are the days where the authoritative claim of an expert may be accepted just because of the expert’s expertise: Hon. Stephen T. Goudge, The Report of the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008). It is the expert’s analysis that is the substance of their evidence, and where there are competing expert opinions, it is the task of the Tribunal to roll up its sleeves, analyse the substance of the expert evidence, and in particular, the points of difference between competing expert opinions, and then to explain – with reference to the expert evidence – why one analysis is preferred over another. Listing the analytical tools used to assess expert evidence, saying that these points have been considered, and then announcing the Tribunal’s conclusion, fails to explain why an application of the “Consideration Points” to the evidence leads to the Tribunal’s findings. As stated by Huscroft JA:In order to reach a reasonable decision in this case, it was incumbent on the board to address the conflicts and ambiguities in the expert evidence. The board was entitled to accept some, all or none of the expert’s evidence, but, whatever it chose to do, the board was required to explain and justify its decision (Re Carrick, 2015 ONCA 866, para. 38). ....
[13] This was a seriously contested clash of expert evidence on questions of importance to the parties. The Tribunal’s reasons fail to provide a reasoned explanation to the losing party as to why its expert evidence was not accepted and fail to provide sufficient analysis to enable review for substantive reasonableness in this court. In short, the reasons are inadequate.
[14] The Tribunal’s decision is set aside, and the case is remitted back to a differently constituted Tribunal for a fresh hearing. There shall be no order as to costs.
|
