The Tribunal saw the essence of the appeal as a request either for free quota or an exemption from quota. In its view, the absence of a compelling and satisfactory reason for the 46-year delay alone was sufficient reason to deny the request for a qualifying period chicken quota allotment. Further, the Tribunal found that Max Burt failed to prove qualifying production during the 1964-65 period and that he was not actually a producer during that time (his father was). The Tribunal was unable to find any authority on which it could extend the qualifying quota from father to son.
On the issue of the exemption, the Tribunal found that the request for an exemption was based on financial reasons - affordability. In dismissing this request, the tribunal wrote:
In our view, affordability cannot be the basis for the Tribunal to grant Max Burt an exemption from the Regulation, so as to permit him to produce and market 2,040 units of chicken. If we were to use affordability as an exemption criterion, it would render CFO's existing exemption policy, as reflected in section 2.02 of the Regulation, meaningless. Further, treating affordability as an exemption criterion could open a flood of exemption applications from some, if not all the other 14,000 registered chicken growers in the province. Finally, treating affordability as an exemption criterion would eventually undermine the chicken quota system, which is the foundation of the chicken supply management system in Ontario.Read the decision at: Max Burt vs Chicken Farmers of Ontario. The decision includes a useful summary of the history of chicken supply management in Ontario.