Andrew Koopal

The appellant producer appealed a decision not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a sample of milk taken from his farm, which resulted in a penalty and disposal costs.

The milk was found to contain an unprecedented level of penicillin, far exceeding what could result from milking treated cows.

The Tribunal found that the contamination was the result of third-party action and that the problem could not reasonably have originated from the producer's farming operations.

The appeal was granted, the test result was removed from the record, and the producer was relieved of the penalty and disposal costs.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a modification to a township by-law concerning the repair and improvement of the Travis Drain.

Following the adoption of an engineer's report, a property owner requested a change in the culvert end treatment from rip-rap to pre-cast concrete headwalls, agreeing to pay the increased cost as a special benefit assessment.

The Tribunal exercised its authority under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, ordering the municipal clerk to insert specific modifying language and to notify affected owners of their right to appeal.

The Township of Tilbury North applied to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal to modify By-law No. 36-97 concerning the Brissette Drain and Pump.

During construction, several changes were made to the drainage system, including enclosing a portion of the open drain, modifying the forcemain, and relocating a sewer, resulting in a 32% cost increase.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under sections 51 and 58 of the Drainage Act, subject to the Township notifying affected landowners and allowing a 14-day appeal period.

The appellant chicken producer appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request to carry forward under-marketed chicken from Quota Period A-21.

The appellant argued it under-estimated its chick order because the respondent was late in issuing the quota allotment.

The Tribunal found joint responsibility, as the respondent failed to issue the allotment in a timely manner, but the appellant failed to contact the respondent for an estimate.

The appeal was partially granted, allowing the appellant to carry forward 10% of its under-production plus half of the remaining under-production.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision allowing two high plate loop count (PLC) test results to stand, which resulted in penalties.

The appellant argued the samples were mishandled by the milk grader and did not reflect the farm's milk quality.

The Tribunal found no evidence of improper sampling or testing procedures, noting the appellant's samples were the only ones on the load with high counts.

The Tribunal concluded that issues with the farm's washing system and equipment provided opportunities for bacterial contamination, and dismissed the appeal.