Bill Schaefer

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Engineer's Report for the Meuller Drain 2014, arguing they were overcharged and seeking a reduction.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer's methods of calculating the assessments, including the benefit rate applied equally on a per metre basis, were reasonable, fair, and equitable.

The appellants failed to provide evidence that their property would not receive a benefit from the drain.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants, landowners within the Little Creek Municipal Drain watershed, appealed the Engineer's Reassessment Report for future maintenance of the drain.

They argued that the Engineer's ratio of 'benefit' to 'outlet' assessment unfairly burdened their lands.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer relied too heavily on previous reports and that, for maintenance projects, benefit assessments should not apply because maintenance simply preserves the existing outlet for all lands in the drainage area without providing new benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer to revise the assessment schedule to eliminate benefit assessments and base it solely on outlet assessments.

The Tribunal also ordered corrections for overlooked woodlots and ownership errors, and directed the municipality to proceed with requested maintenance work.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the Ruscom River Outlet No. 3 Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the damage allowances and benefit assessments levied against their property.

The Tribunal upheld the allowances provided for the loss of a tree and a boathouse, finding no compelling evidence to adjust them.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part regarding the benefit assessment, reducing it from $9,434 to $7,144 by adjusting the cost allocation for a new steel sheet pile wall to match the allocation used for filling the boat well.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain project designed to convey stormwater and control erosion in a steep gully area.

The appellants argued the project was excessive and unwarranted, suggesting less expensive alternatives like rock riprap.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the design was appropriate for the extreme gradient and high water velocities, and that the appellants' property was properly assessed.

The appeal was denied and the engineer's report was confirmed without modification.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Beets Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his lands did not require additional drainage, that the proposed drain would interfere with his farming operations, and that the allowances provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support modifying the assessments or allowances.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's proposed modifications to the drainage works, finding they did not provide a sufficient outlet as required by the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied and the Engineer's Report was confirmed.

The County of Elgin appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Kalita-Pfeifer Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the assessment of a private landowner and added the difference to the County's assessment.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's original assessment methodology to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

Finding no rationale for the Court of Revision's decision, the Tribunal rescinded the reduction and reinstated the original assessments.

The County of Elgin appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding drainage assessments for the Talbot Line Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced assessments for two property owners and reapportioned those costs entirely to the County.

The Tribunal confirmed one reduction based on new evidence but ordered the costs reapportioned among all affected parties.

The Tribunal rescinded the second reduction, finding no rationale for the Court of Revision's decision, and reinstated the original benefit assessments from the Engineer's Report.

The appellant, a retired veterinarian, appealed the revocation of his Class 1 Licence to sell livestock medicines and the seizure of his medicines.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had voluntarily resigned from the licensing system prior to the provisional suspension and revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also found that the Ministry committed procedural errors by failing to issue a warning letter and failing to provide an opportunity for compliance before the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the return of the seized medicines and personal items, and directed that the voluntary resignation not be considered negatively in any future licence application.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the construction of a new municipal tile drain on their property.

They sought to have the drain diverted to a different watershed, requested changes to the drain's design, argued for increased allowances for land and crop damages, and sought a reduction in their drainage assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence that the design was appropriate for the historical watershed, the allowances were fair and equitable, and the assessment methodology conformed with the Drainage Act.

The appellant sought compensation for alleged faulty workmanship by the respondent on a tractor transmission repair completed in 2005.

The transmission seized in 2008, and a subsequent repair by another mechanic suggested a set-screw was missing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory and contractual warranties had expired long before the transmission seized.

Furthermore, the evidence did not persuasively establish that the set-screw was never installed, given the tractor operated for three years and 500 hours without issue.

The Ontario Milk Transport Association appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding the payment formula for milk transporters.

The appellant challenged the DFO's unilateral reduction of the on-farm function time from eight to seven minutes and sought a 3.5 percent increase to the labour rate component instead of the 2.5 percent implemented by the DFO.

The Tribunal found that the payment formula was an agreement intended to be in place for at least five years and could not be unilaterally altered without substantive data.

The Tribunal ordered the on-farm function time reinstated to eight minutes but upheld the 2.5 percent labour rate increase as fair and equitable based on industry data.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision upholding somatic cell count (SCC) penalties imposed on their milk production for June, July, and August 2006.

They alleged that the official milk samples had been tampered with or improperly tested, and presented independent test results that differed from the official results.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of tampering or testing inaccuracies, noting that the independent samples had been frozen, which could alter SCC results.

The appeal was dismissed and the official SCC test results were confirmed.

The appellant, an abattoir operator, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency ordering it to pay outstanding license fees, finance charges, and a $1,000 fine, subject to a payment schedule and threat of license suspension.

The appellant argued financial hardship and disputed the slaughter numbers.

The Tribunal found the agency's slaughter data valid and upheld the requirement to remit fees, noting that bad debts from customers do not relieve the operator of its regulatory obligations.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of correcting a $374.82 billing error agreed upon by the parties; the $1,000 fine and payment schedule were upheld.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision upholding a positive inhibitor test for penicillin in his milk, which resulted in the disposal of a milk load and regulatory penalties.

The appellant did not dispute the test results but argued the contamination was caused by sabotage related to his candidacy in a dairy board election.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove sabotage on a balance of probabilities and noting that milk producers bear the responsibility to ensure the quality of milk in their bulk tanks.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed a decision of the Deputy Director to amend the license of Mornington Heritage Cheese and Dairy Co-operative Inc. to allow it to process cow's milk in a co-packing arrangement with Toronto International Farms Corporation (TIFCO).

The appellant argued the Deputy Director misinterpreted the regulations and failed to consider the impact on existing processors given the limited milk supply.

The Tribunal found that Mornington Dairy met the technical requirements for processing cow's milk and that objections regarding the method of entry to the processing industry were insufficient to deny the license amendment.

The appeal was denied and the Deputy Director's decision was upheld.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario not to adjust his payment for milk produced against quota in July 2004.

The appellant had dumped milk and not shipped on the last day of the month to avoid exceeding quota, after consulting a field representative who failed to advise him that doing so would result in the loss of two quota days for that month.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence in seeking advice and was not adequately informed of the consequences.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to adjust the appellant's quota days to 32 days in July 2004 and 30 days in August 2004, and to make the appropriate financial adjustments.