Bill Olson

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of a Tribunal decision ordering the construction of a municipal drain along 'Alternative C'.

The Municipality and the project engineer advocated for 'Alternative B', citing landowner concerns and potential costs.

The Tribunal found that the engineer lacked independence and failed to properly investigate 'Alternative C'.

However, given a petition from 20 landowners supporting 'Alternative B', the Tribunal ordered construction along that route.

The Tribunal also ordered that engineering and legal costs incurred since February 2003 be assessed as a special benefit to the Municipality, as the subsequent proceedings were driven by the Municipality and provided no benefit to the drain.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to seize and destroy carryover tobacco and tobacco grown in 2003.

The Tribunal found that the carryover tobacco grown under a sharegrower arrangement could not be marketed because the quota holders had sold their quota.

The Tribunal also found that the 2003 tobacco was grown without a licence and without basic production quota.

The Tribunal ordered that all carryover tobacco, except for 7,400 lbs., and all tobacco grown in 2003 be destroyed.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the Walker Drain Improvement.

The Tribunal considered three alternative routes for the drain.

It ordered the drain to be reconstructed generally along its original route (Alternative C), finding it to be the lowest cost functional solution.

The Tribunal also ordered the engineer to vary the assessment methodology, allocating 35-40% of statutory benefit to roads and 60-65% to residential lands, and allowed direct appeals to the Tribunal from the revised engineer's report.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the Walker Drain Improvement project, citing new evidence about utility lines and costs that made the Tribunal's ordered route more expensive.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the municipality's engineer and several assessed landowners.

Finding the evidence insufficient to justify altering the route without further investigation, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and ordered the engineer to provide detailed plans, cost estimates, and consultation reports for alternative routes before making a final determination.

The appellant constructed a farm access bridge over a municipal drain without an engineer's report.

The municipality ordered construction to stop and appointed an engineer to prepare a report to bring the bridge into compliance with municipal standards.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision, arguing the bridge met provincial standards and the municipality's unwritten policies were discriminatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the municipality had the authority to enforce its construction standards and that reasonable efforts were made to compromise.

The Tribunal ordered the bridge to be constructed in accordance with the engineer's report and assessed $1,000 in hearing costs against the appellant.

Several assessed landowners appealed the engineer's report for the Walker Drain Improvement under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed route for the drain relocation was not optimal and that the assessment of costs was unfair.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be referred back to the engineer to redesign the drain along an alternative route proposed by the appellants' engineer, which more closely aligned with the existing drain and minimized property damage.

The Tribunal also ordered modifications to the assessment methodology, adjusting the allocation of statutory benefits between roads and residential lands.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board cancelling their basic production quota for participating in illegal sales of tobacco.

The Tribunal found that evidence from an RCMP investigation supported the finding that tobacco was shipped from the appellants' farm to Quebec on two occasions and that the appellants were aware of these shipments.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty of quota cancellation, finding it appropriate given the severity of the infraction in a highly regulated industry.

The appellants appealed a municipal council's decision to deny their petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their lands required better drainage and requested the appointment of an engineer to assess the municipal drain's capacity.

The municipality and other assessed landowners opposed the petition, arguing the drain was recently cleaned and functioning properly.

The Tribunal found the petition invalid under Section 4 but, noting the appellants' offer to fund a preliminary report, ordered the municipality to appoint an engineer to prepare a preliminary report at the appellants' sole expense.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to close the Tillsonburg Auction Exchange and market the 2001 tobacco crop exclusively through the Delhi Exchange.

The appellants argued the decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and based on political bias rather than economic efficiencies.

The Tribunal found that the Board's decision was based on a consideration of a range of economic factors, including efficiencies, broad economic impact, and political capital.

The Tribunal concluded the Board did not err in its procedure or make an unfair decision, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny their crop insurance claim for 72 acres of unharvested soybeans.

AGRICORP had denied the claim on the basis that the appellants engaged in improper farming practices by failing to harvest the crop before winter.

The Tribunal found that excessive rainfall and poor field conditions prevented the harvesting of the soybeans, and that being among the last to harvest in an area does not inherently constitute a poor farming practice.

The appeal was partially granted, and AGRICORP was ordered to pay the claim for the unharvested soybeans.