Christine Greydanus

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works would not ameliorate flooding on their properties, objected to the assessment of costs for bank restoration, and argued that the costs of previous incomplete engineering reports should not be assessed to the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the MacNeils' appeals but adjusted the assessment schedule for the Bank Restoration Improvement Program.

The Tribunal allowed Whisky Run Golf Club's appeals in part, ordering that the engineering fees from previous incomplete reports be borne solely by the Municipality, that a mobile pump be used instead of a permanent pump, and that the cost of pumping be divided as 50% Outlet Liability and 50% Benefit to lands lower than the top of the gates.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report for the Northland Estates Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the proposed drain moved 3 meters west to protect mature boundary trees on their property.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act authorizes the construction of drainage works and provides compensation for property and tree damage, superseding the Forestry Act's requirement for mutual consent to injure boundary trees.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed location on the adjacent farmland was the least intrusive option that balanced the needs of the residential landowners and the agricultural property.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed their assessments for the maintenance and repair of the Harrop Municipal Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that their lands did not benefit from the drain, and that the Hagersville Wastewater Treatment Plant should bear 100% of the maintenance costs.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's engineer, who used the Todgham Method and LiDAR data to determine the drainage area and outlet liability.

The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate the appellants' claims or to support an alternate assessment methodology.

The appeals were dismissed.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals under s. 48(1) and s. 54(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements to the drain were being undertaken pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act, which does not require a petition from landowners.

The Tribunal concluded that the s. 48(1) appeal did not meet the statutory criteria and dismissed both appeals without a hearing, granting the appellants participant status instead.

Several landowners appealed the 2022 Engineer's Report for the Cranberry Creek Municipal Drain, arguing that the land use factors (LUFs) were incorrect, the Pump and Dyke System was improperly included, and their properties were assessed too high.

The Tribunal found that the LUFs should have followed the Tribunal's 2020 Decision, which assigned lower factors to forested lands and provincially significant wetlands.

The Tribunal also found that the Pump and Dyke System had been abandoned and its inclusion constituted reconstruction, which falls outside the scope of a section 76 report.

Due to these and other significant errors in land use classification, the Tribunal set aside the 2022 Report.

The respondent municipality sought costs against the self-represented applicant after his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act was dismissed.

The municipality argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and an attempt to relitigate previously decided issues, and that the applicant had maligned the municipality's character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the costs application, noting that costs are rarely awarded and that self-represented litigants are not held to the same standard as those represented by counsel.

The applicant neighbour brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging a noise disturbance from the respondent's apple storage facility.

The respondent had rebuilt its facility and relocated its controlled atmosphere equipment, including condenser fans and a nitrogen generator, closer to the applicant's property.

The Board applied the common law nuisance test to determine if the applicant was directly affected by the disturbance.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property, noting the agricultural character of the neighbourhood and the respondent's efforts to buffer the noise.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application alleging that the municipality's property standards by-law restricted his normal farm practices.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the zoning by-law prohibited agricultural uses on the property and that any remedy would effectively grant relief from the zoning by-law's use provisions.

The Board agreed, finding that because farming was prohibited on the property by the zoning by-law and a prior court order, there was no reasonable prospect of legitimate gain or reward.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from the use provisions of a zoning by-law and dismissed the application.

Several appellants brought motions for disclosure of documents and extensions of time in an appeal under section 54 of the Drainage Act regarding the Cranberry Creek Drain.

The Tribunal found that most of the moving parties failed to provide affidavits with their motion materials as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents or grounds for an extension.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions of Larwill, Leger, and the Whitmores, but ordered the City of Ottawa to produce one specific document relating to land use factors to the Harpers.

Following a decision in favour of the respondents regarding normal farm practices, the respondents sought costs against the applicants.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

This conduct included commencing a frivolous application, raising unsubstantiated issues, attempting to malign the respondents, serving excessive and irrelevant documents, bringing unreasonable motions, and making continued allegations of bias.

The Board awarded costs of $40,000 to the respondents.

The applicants, who own a cottage adjacent to the respondents' cow-calf farm, brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances from flies, odour, and dust caused by the respondents' manure storage and application practices.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicants were directly affected by the disturbances.

Finding that the applicants failed to show substantial interference that would not be tolerated by an ordinary occupier in a rural agricultural area, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.

The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.

The appellants appealed their Outlet Liability assessment under the Drainage Act for the Komoka Drainage Works.

They argued the drainage works should be funded entirely by the municipality's Stormwater Management levy or that their assessment should be reduced due to an inappropriate equivalent factor applied to their agricultural land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' properties were not in the Settlement area and did not pay into the Stormwater levy.

The Tribunal also found the engineer's use of a 1.0 factor for agricultural lands was fair and reasonable, and that the assessment was calculated correctly using the modified Todgham method.

The appellant brought a motion seeking disclosure of numerous documents related to the Smeltzer Drain 2020 project.

The Tribunal found that not all requested documents were relevant to the appeal.

The respondent confirmed which documents existed and agreed to a timeline for delivery.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the relevant documents to the appellant by a specified date.

The Appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the proposed Noah Martin Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing a lack of procedural fairness, requesting the drain be relocated off his property, seeking explicit permission for future underdrainage connections, and claiming insufficient allowances.

The Tribunal found that statutory consultation processes were followed and accepted the engineer's proposed route.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised to explicitly state the drain has capacity for the Appellant's future underdrainage and increased the section 30 allowance for damages by $1,000 to account for additional fence crossings.

The appellant appealed his assessment for Special Benefit under the Drainage Act regarding the Fleming Drain Extension.

The engineer's report assessed the appellant's property $10,095 for special benefit related to the partial filling of a ravine to control erosion.

The appellant argued he should be assessed nothing and that the neighbouring property should bear the cost.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's property did receive a special benefit from the stabilization of the ravine bank, but that the assessment was disproportionate.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant's special benefit assessment be reduced by 50%, with the balance assessed as Outlet and Injuring Liability to upstream lands and roads.

The Appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance imposing a level 4 penalty for high somatic cell counts in their milk.

The Appellants argued that several milk samples were rendered unsuitable for testing due to circumstances outside their control, and requested that favourable test results be imputed for those missing samples to reduce their demerit percentage below the penalty threshold.

The Tribunal found that the available test results were representative of the milk offered for sale and that it lacked the authority under the Raw Milk Quality Program Policies to impute test results.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent Director brought a motion to dismiss appeals from regulatory decisions classifying a dairy farm as Non-Grade A Levels 1, 2 and 3.

The appellant did not dispute the factual inspection findings, but sought relief from unannounced inspections and argued it was unreasonable to expect continuous Grade A compliance in an older facility.

The Tribunal held there was no legal basis to require notice before inspections and that the appeal was plainly incapable of success.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed under s. 16(4)(b) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act as frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act regarding the repair and enclosure of a municipal drain on their property.

They argued for alternative repair methods and a reduction in their assessment, claiming upstream landowners should bear more of the costs.

The Tribunal found the proposed repair was the only viable option and that the assessments for benefit and special benefit were fair and in accordance with the Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants, who are pullet and egg producers, appealed decisions of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding policies and procedures for leasing pullet quota.

The appellants challenged the May 2018 and January 2019 Pullet Leasing Pool Policies, arguing they were adopted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and penalized new farmers.

The Tribunal found that EFO acted transparently, consulted with producers, and implemented the policies within its mandate to manage the quota system efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the policies were not punitive but served to fulfill the intended goals of the quota system.