Battle of the Experts – Competing expert evidence and the role of a tribunal

The Ontario Superior Court held that the tribunal mishandled the competing expert evidence before it and failed to give adequate reasons for its findings. The Court clarified that it is the tribunal’s task to “roll up its sleeves”, analyze the substance of each expert evidence, and explain with reference to the evidence why one expert analysis was preferred over another.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence – Witnesses – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter; Agriculture – Farm operations.

Assn. of Ontario Chicken Processors v. Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chicken Commission, [2025] O.J. No. 3160, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 16, 2025, D.L. Corbett, F.B. Fitzpatrick and P.L. Hebner JJ.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (the “Association”) sought judicial review of the decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which upheld the decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching & Egg Commission (the “Commission”) respecting a Cost of Production Formula used to set prices for chickens sold to chicken farmers. The tribunal was faced with multiple competing expert evidence from the Association and the Commission.

The Court held that the Tribunal had mis-stated its task during the Tribunal hearing when it stated that its role is not to decide which of the expert opinions is correct. While it is not the task of the Tribunal to come to its “own opinion” on matters in issue requiring expert evidence, it is the task of the Tribunal to make findings of fact on the basis of evidence that it accepts. Where a factual issue is contested, the Tribunal’s task is to explain its findings. The Court highlighted that is very much the Tribunal’s role to decide which facts are “correct” – that is, which facts the Tribunal accepts on the basis of the evidence before it.

Ultimately, the Court found that the Tribunal mishandled the competing expert evidence before it and failed to give adequate reasons for its findings. Accordingly, it found that the Tribunal’s decision could not stand. The court found that there was a seriously contested clash of expert evidence on questions of importance to the parties. The Tribunal failed to provide a reasoned explanation to the Association as to why its expert evidence was not accepted and failed to provide sufficient analysis to enable review for substantive reasonableness. The Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the case was remitted back to a differently constituted Tribunal for a new hearing.

This case was digested by Eric Mo of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].