Dave Fawcett

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for the improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The report proposed removing a retaining wall on the appellants' property that had recently been reconstructed under an emergency designation by the Minister.

The Tribunal found that the emergency reconstruction was not supervised by an engineer as required by the Minister's condition, and the current engineer's report failed to properly analyze whether the wall could be incorporated into the drainage works.

The Tribunal set aside the engineer's report and ordered a new report to be prepared at the municipality's expense.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision which increased its municipal drain assessment by $38,300 for the supersizing of a road culvert.

The appellant argued that its property is actively farmed, not ready for industrial development, and does not benefit from the supersized culvert designed for downstream industrial properties.

The engineer who prepared the drainage report agreed that the original assessment of $9,007 for the open drain was appropriate and that the appellant should not be assessed for the culvert supersizing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reducing the culvert assessment to zero, noting that if the property is developed in the future, it can be reassessed under section 65(3) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants appealed the compensation and special benefit assessments under the Drainage Act regarding a proposed municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that the compensation for insufficient outlet was inadequate because the engineer calculated the corridor length based on an arbitrary termination point rather than the actual distance to a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal increased the compensation from $5,690 to $9,653.

The Tribunal also found that the $5,510 special benefit assessment against the appellants for additional engineering investigations was unjust, as the onus is on the upper lands to justify an insufficient outlet.

Both appeals were granted.

The appellants appealed the final engineer's report for the proposed Frank Szeder Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the project was delayed excessively and the proposed design was flawed and too costly.

The Tribunal found that while the 12-year delay was excessive, the appellants failed to provide evidence that the proposed drainage work was technically flawed or that the costs outweighed the benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the engineer's report, but limited the chargeable engineering costs to $108,130 to account for the excessive delay.

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.

The appellants brought a motion seeking declarations that the respondent municipalities lacked jurisdiction to refer an engineer's drainage report back for reconsideration, arguing the matter was before the Drainage Referee.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 57 of the Drainage Act provides clear authority for a municipal council to refer a report back to the engineer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal also noted there was no evidence of improper motive and that raising the jurisdictional issue at this stage was inappropriate.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for their properties under the Drainage Act regarding the Biederman Municipal Drain improvement project.

They argued that the drainage works should be funded by existing property taxes rather than specific assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that the allowances were inadequate or that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the assessments were fair and reasonable, and adopted the Engineer's Report in full.

Two appeals were brought regarding the Port Colborne Municipal Drain.

Port Colborne Quarries Inc. appealed under Section 54 of the Drainage Act, seeking to reduce the runoff coefficients used for their assessment, which had been increased by the Court of Revision.

Jack Hellinga appealed under Section 48, arguing his lands were improperly assessed for upstream work.

The Tribunal dismissed Hellinga's appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under Section 48 to hear an appeal regarding assessments.

The Tribunal allowed the quarry's appeal, relying on expert engineering evidence to restore the lower runoff coefficients originally proposed in the engineer's report.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied for the renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal had previously granted provisional accreditation, requiring the applicant to provide proof of compliance regarding the public availability of its audited financial statements and an amended statement including the total number of supporters.

The applicant provided an affidavit and restated financial statements satisfying these requirements.

The Tribunal found the applicant in full compliance and granted the renewal of its accreditation for a five-year period.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the NFU-O met all the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 783/20, including requirements related to incorporation, representation, education, government consultation, supporter numbers, membership fees, and financial reporting.

The Tribunal ordered the renewal of the NFU-O's accreditation for a five-year period.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether the organization met the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 783/20.

The Tribunal found that the organization largely satisfied the criteria but required further evidence regarding the public availability of its audited financial statements and the inclusion of supporter numbers in those statements.

The Tribunal granted a provisional accreditation for 60 days to allow the organization to provide the required evidence.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence provided by the applicant against the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 783/20.

Finding that the applicant met all the necessary requirements, including those related to membership, educational activities, policy advice, and financial reporting, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered the renewal of the accreditation for a five-year period.

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.