Armand Bechard

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny his crop insurance claim for a reduced soybean yield in 1999.

AGRICORP had denied the claim on the basis that the yield reduction was due to poor farm management practices, specifically inadequate weed control, rather than an insured peril like drought.

The Tribunal found that the yield reduction was caused by a combination of drought (an insured peril) and poor farm management practices (late planting and lack of crop rotation).

The Tribunal ordered AGRICORP to pay 50% of the claim, amounting to $2,109.97.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny their claims for 1999 hay and pasture crops under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Forage.

The appellants argued that their individual yields were significantly lower than the area-based simulated yields due to drought.

The Tribunal found that the Forage Plan is an area-based plan, not an individual farm plan, and that AGRICORP calculated the claims in accordance with the regulations and the plan's requirements.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Lewis and Maple Avenue South Drains.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments for the Lewis Drain as modified by the Court of Revision.

For the Maple Avenue South Drain, the Tribunal found the work was required but modified the assessment schedule to reflect that the major factor contributing to the need for the work was the construction of berms by one of the appellants, assessing a special benefit to that owner.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding the cancellation of his processor's live chicken supply and the resulting cancellation of his production contracts.

The appellant argued he was aggrieved because he would have difficulty finding a new processor for his heavy roaster chickens in future quota periods.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO was within its statutory rights to deny a hearing and had already provided sufficient accommodation by allowing the appellant to adjust his production and marketing for the immediate quota period.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's adjustment of his 1998 crop insurance claim for corn.

AGRICORP had reduced the guaranteed production by 43 bushels per acre, attributing the loss to poor weed control rather than drought.

The Tribunal found that the reduced yield was entirely due to drought, an insured peril, as the dry weather caused both the poor crop and a late flush of weeds.

However, because the appellant failed to report the obvious crop damage in a timely manner, preventing AGRICORP from conducting a proper field inspection, the Tribunal imposed a 25% penalty on the calculated claim.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's decision denying his crop insurance claim for a shortfall in soybean yield.

AGRICORP argued the loss was due to uninsured perils (weeds) and poor management, and that the appellant failed to report the damage prior to harvest.

The Tribunal found that an insured peril (drought) contributed to the reduced yield and accepted the appellant's evidence that he had reported a potential claim to an AGRICORP employee prior to harvest.

The appeal was granted, and AGRICORP was ordered to pay a reduced production claim of 457 bushels.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Knudsen Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellant argued that the benefit assessment on their property was too high, as their land did not suffer from poor drainage or ponding, unlike upstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the drain on the appellant's property was to provide an outlet for upstream lands, not to benefit the appellant's land.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be amended, reversing the benefit-to-outlet ratio for the appellant's property from 60% benefit / 40% outlet to 40% benefit / 60% outlet.

The respondent Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, brought a preliminary motion requesting that the Tribunal refuse to hear the appellants' appeal on the basis that it was frivolous.

The appellants had appealed decisions not to cancel freezing point test results and resulting penalties.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions and concluded that a hearing should be convened and that mediation was not within its mandate.

The preliminary request to refuse to hear the appeal was dismissed.

Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc. appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an allocation of supply of chicken for processing for crop Quota Period A-20.

Niagara, a new entrant, had requested 1.6 million kilograms.

The Tribunal considered the industry's capacity, the ongoing review of the allocation process, and the history of granting supply to new entrants.

The Tribunal directed the CFO to allot 100,000 kilograms for the domestic market and 200,000 kilograms for the export market to Niagara for Quota Period A-20.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board which reduced their basic production quota by 50% for selling tobacco outside the Board's auction exchange.

The appellants admitted to the illegal sales but sought leniency on compassionate grounds due to severe family health and financial stress.

The Tribunal found that while the breach was a serious offense requiring a significant deterrent, the circumstances warranted compassion.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, reducing the penalty to a 40% cancellation of the appellants' basic quota to allow them a better opportunity to remain viable tobacco producers.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to allocate 450,000 kg of chicken to Farm Fresh Poultry Co-op Inc. for Quota Period A-19 and 550,000 kg for Quota Period A-20.

The Tribunal found that the CFO did not follow normal practice and that the allocation for A-20 was premature.

The Tribunal directed the CFO to set the A-19 allocation at 382,000 kg and revoked the A-20 allocation.

Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc., a new entrant building a chicken processing facility, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying its request for an allocation of 1.6 million kilograms of live chicken for Quota Period A-19.

The Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that granting such a large initial allocation to a plant not yet operational would be irresponsible and disruptive to the industry, especially while a review of the supply setting mechanism was underway.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Egg Producers' Marketing Board denying their request for an exemption from Quota Policy #2.

The appellants sought to sell 90% of their pullet quota calculated on the past two years' utilization rather than the required five years' utilization, citing the poor condition of their recently purchased barn and the cost of refurbishing.

The Tribunal found no compelling reasons to make an exception to the policy, noting the new policy provided a better opportunity than the one existing when the appellants purchased the premises.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, Robert Meersseman, appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission denying his request for a license to process vegetables in 1997.

The appellant had applied for a personal license after his company, Boneta Foods, was denied a license.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and Boneta Foods were indistinguishable for the purposes of obtaining a license, and that the personal application was an attempt to bypass the denial of the corporate license.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a licensed chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario imposing a penalty of a 10,000-kilogram quota reduction for failing to report 2,000 kilograms of chicken production.

The appellant admitted to the unreported marketing but argued the penalty was too severe given his difficulties with the processor.

The Tribunal found that while illegal production is a serious breach, the penalty was severe and likely an act of omission caused by frustration rather than a deliberate attempt to circumvent regulations.

The Tribunal denied the appeal but adjusted the penalty to a 6,000-kilogram quota reduction, representing three times the unreported amount, consistent with first-offence penalties.