Andy Koopal

Two landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Nithburg Drain No. 2.

One appellant argued that the branch drain primarily benefited adjacent residential lots rather than his agricultural property, while the other objected to a drain stub on his property and its associated assessment.

The Tribunal found that the residential lots received more benefit from the branch drain than the agricultural property and ordered the assessments varied accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the drain stub on the second appellant's property to provide a legal outlet, but ordered the addition of a hickenbottom connection.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.

The appellants, tobacco farmers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board refusing to permit them to change their Declarations of 2001 Tobacco Kiln Conversion to reflect 20 additional kilns.

The appellants had purchased the kilns to replace rented ones prior to the announcement of a rebate program, but an inspector incorrectly advised them not to include the new kilns on their declarations.

The Tribunal found that the appellants relied on the detrimental advice of the inspector and that the kilns were eligible for funding under the program guidelines.

The appeal was granted, and the Board was ordered to pay the appellants $1,500 for each of the 20 additional kilns.

The Wine Council of Ontario and several winery growers appealed decisions of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board regarding substantial increases in license fees for the 2001 vintage year.

The appellants sought the release of the Board's budget, a reversal of the fee increases, and the withdrawal of late payment penalties and interest on withheld fees.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted within its authority to increase fees and was not obligated to release its confidential budget.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal regarding penalties, ordering that the 5% penalty be applied to outstanding fees but staying the 2% monthly interest until April 15, 2002.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying her request for a reduction in a monetary penalty of $2,642.53 assessed for over-marketing chicken.

The appellant argued that the processor was partially responsible for the over-production and should share the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate private contractual disputes between producers and processors, and noting that the appellant agreed the penalty amount itself was fair.

The Hostess Frito Lay Company and Super Pufft Snacks Corp. appealed a decision of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission refusing to bring into force settlement agreements negotiated between the processors and the Ontario Potato Board.

The Commission had previously declined to re-open arbitrated awards, citing concerns about the integrity of the arbitration process amidst ongoing court challenges.

However, the Tribunal found that the multi-year settlement agreements, which were supported by growers and other industry stakeholders, would provide a mutually agreeable and stable marketing environment.

The Tribunal granted the appeals and ordered the Commission to bring the settlement agreements into force.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the repair and improvement of the Washington Municipal Drain.

The appellant raised concerns about assessments, allowances, cost-benefit justification, and environmental impacts, but refused to call evidence or submit to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, alleging bias and filing a mid-hearing appeal to the Drainage Referee.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional and bias challenges, proceeded with the hearing, and accepted the engineer's overwhelming evidence that the drainage works were necessary and the assessments fair.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay $8,000 in costs to the municipality due to his highly adversarial and unmeritorious approach.

The appellant requested an adjournment of the hearing sine die because he elected to file appeals from previous Tribunal decisions to the Referee, and intended to bring an application to the Referee for a declaration that the proposed drainage work does not comply with the Drainage Act.

The respondent and other represented parties opposed the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the application to adjourn, noting its obligation to deal with matters fairly and expeditiously in the absence of a valid order of prohibition.

Multiple landowners appealed the Final Engineer's Report regarding the Allanport Road Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants raised concerns regarding the necessity of certain branch drains, the requirement to participate in a common stormwater management pond, water quality monitoring, and the appropriateness of their assessments.

The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the upper portion of Branch Drain #8, allowed landowners to opt out of the stormwater management pond, provided for water quality monitoring for the Cytec property, and adjusted certain assessments accordingly.

The engineer was directed to consolidate the changes into a revised report.

The appellant, Van Moorsel Farms Ltd., appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to reverse a transfer of 10,008 units of basic quota to a purchaser and refusing to allocate an additional 6,500 units of basic quota to the appellant.

The appellant argued that because it had not been fully paid for the quota at the time the CFO announced a new quota conversion policy, it retained property rights in the quota and was entitled to the new allocation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that quota is a revocable license, not personal property, and that the appellant had initiated the transfer before the policy freeze date, rendering it ineligible for the new allocation.

Multiple landowners appealed the revised Final Engineer's Report on the Allanport Road Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

At the hearing, a preliminary motion was brought regarding the validity of the petition for the upstream portion of Branch No. 8.

The Tribunal found that no petition meeting the requirements of the Drainage Act was filed within the time prescribed by its previous interim order.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the upper portion of Branch No. 8 from the proposed work and directed the engineer to prepare a document recommending changes to the report and assessment schedules.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant raised concerns regarding a gabion structure placed on its property, potential liability, and the improper disposal of excavated spoil which created a berm and caused ponding.

The Tribunal found the gabion structure was constructed adequately and in accordance with the engineer's report, and declined to order fencing at the drain's expense.

However, the Tribunal found the spoil was not adequately spread and ordered the engineer to consult with the landowner to level the material and construct swales to prevent ponding.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion seeking an adjournment, an examination for discovery of the municipal engineer, and the right for their own engineer to inspect the land.

The Tribunal denied the request for an examination for discovery, noting such orders are only for extraordinary circumstances.

However, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered the municipal engineer to produce specific documents, including field notes and calculations, to ensure fairness without overcomplicating the quasi-judicial process.

During a hearing de novo regarding the allocation of live chicken to Ontario processors, counsel for the CFRA raised an apprehension of bias concerning panel member Andy Koopal.

The CFRA argued that because the CFO intended to call the former chair of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) as a witness, and Mr. Koopal was a dairy farmer licensed by the DFO, he was biased.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, noting that the DFO was not a party, Mr. Koopal was not on the DFO board, and the hearing was policy-based rather than adjudicative.

The Tribunal found no evidence that Mr. Koopal had lost the requirement of open-mindedness.

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Drainage Act regarding the Dippel Drainage Works.

The Court of Revision had previously altered the engineer's original assessment schedule by shifting statutory benefits for culverts from downstream landowners to the appellants.

The Tribunal found no basis in the Drainage Act for the Court of Revision's changes and noted that the revised maintenance schedule inequitably burdened the appellants.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, set aside the Court of Revision's decision, and reinstated the original engineer's report.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed two penalties assessed by the Director for abnormal freezing point test results, which indicate added water in the milk.

The Tribunal upheld the first penalty from July 22, 1999, finding the test results accurate and the penalty validly assessed.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the second penalty from August 13, 1999, because the appellant had only received notice of the first penalty ten days prior, which was insufficient time to resolve the underlying nutritional and equipment issues before the second sample was taken.

The second penalty was ordered expunged and the funds reimbursed.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the Bartlett Creek Municipal Drain Downstream Section under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued the report was incomplete, the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, and their individual assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeal, finding the report complete and the benefits commensurate with the costs.

The Tribunal partially granted the section 54 appeal, ordering modifications to the assessment schedules to properly account for special benefits and to remove certain prior consulting and carrying charges from the project's estimated costs.

Costs of $750 were awarded against two of the appellants for bringing a frivolous appeal.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the South Hutchinson Municipal Drain.

The engineer's report proposed cleaning out and extending the drain, with assessments divided between benefit and outlet.

The appellants argued their benefit assessment was disproportionately high compared to upstream landowners.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the main drain was to provide an outlet for the entire watershed rather than direct benefit to abutting landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer to prepare a new schedule of assessment using a ratio of 40% benefit and 60% outlet for channel maintenance.

The appellant, H. A. Staff Limited, appealed a decision of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board denying a proposal to calculate Board fees as a single percentage point of the gross market value for all classes of grapes.

The appellant argued the current fee structure, which includes a flat rate plus a percentage of market value, disproportionately burdened lower-priced grape classes.

The Tribunal found the current method of spreading generic costs via a flat fee plus a percentage of crop value to be reasonable and fair.

The appeal was denied.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and allowances set out in an engineer's report for the proposed Singers Corners Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high relative to the benefit received, that the proposed works would cause flooding on downstream properties, and that the allowances for land used and crop damage were inadequate.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the engineer calculated the assessments using accepted principles and that the allowances were reasonable.

The Tribunal made one minor correction to transfer an allowance to the correct property owner.

Appeals were filed under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report for the Lewis Municipal Drain and the Maple Avenue South Municipal Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the proposed assessments, the location of the drain, and the potential impact on a fish farm.

During the hearing, alternative routes and designs were proposed, including a late report from a consultant that had not been disclosed to all parties.

The Tribunal declined to redesign the project or accept the late report without proper notice to affected landowners.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer for reconsideration and awarded costs against the appellant who filed the late report for wasting a hearing day.