David Fawcett

The appellant appealed a municipal drainage report under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits of the proposed works were not commensurate with the estimated costs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed erosion and sediment control works would benefit the drainage area, the works were not currently required and were deferred to an undetermined future date.

Consequently, assessing properties now for the engineering fees of possible future improvements was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the municipality to pay 50% of the engineering fees out of general funds.

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 applicant farmer applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a determination that his use of Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs) to protect his cow-calf operation from coyotes was a normal farm practice, seeking relief from a municipal animal control by-law prohibiting dogs running at large.

The applicant used seven German Shepherds that frequently left his property and roamed the neighbourhood.

The Board heard expert evidence that while using LGDs is a normal farm practice, using German Shepherds is inappropriate and allowing LGDs to roam off the farm property is not a normal farm practice.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant's specific practice was not a normal farm practice and therefore not exempt from the municipal by-law.

The applicant filed applications under sections 5 and 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act regarding a proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and a related zoning by-law amendment.

The Board issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal Without A Hearing, noting it lacked jurisdiction because the BESS was not an agricultural operation, the alleged disturbances were not covered by the Act, and the facility had not yet been constructed.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction to repeal or quash municipal by-laws.

After receiving submissions, the Board dismissed both applications for lack of jurisdiction and because the applicant lacked a sufficient personal interest.

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 appellants appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Hostine Drain East Branch.

The Tribunal considered whether one of the appellants had standing to appeal under section 54 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that standing under section 54 requires the appellant to have been a party to the appeal before the court of revision.

Because the appellant was not an owner of land assessed for the drainage works, she could not have been a party before the court of revision.

Consequently, her appeal was dismissed for lack of standing.

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Drainage Act for the replacement of the McClure Bridge, arguing their lands drained into a different drain than the one assessed.

The Tribunal found that the natural flow of water from the appellants' properties was towards the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, not the Crawford Drain as relied upon by the engineer's report.

The Tribunal concluded the engineer should have recommended a new watershed investigation upon discovering contradictions between historical reports and actual water flows.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants' assessment was removed and reallocated to the Township.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of two appellants regarding the Tate Drain.

After the appeal of those appellants was dismissed, the Tribunal reviewed the Minutes of Settlement signed by the remaining parties.

Finding the settlement proper under section 51 of the Drainage Act, the Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement and ordered the Township to amend the provisional by-law accordingly.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of Ken and Robert J. Jones regarding the Tate Drain.

The appellants failed to attend several pre-hearing conferences and the peremptory motion hearing, and did not file responding materials.

The Tribunal found the appeal seemingly abandoned and dismissed it as frivolous under Rules 33.01 and 33.06 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a reconsideration decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission regarding a new Cost of Production formula.

The appellant sought six amendments to the formula, including changes to the prime rate calculation, exclusion of depreciation from working capital, adjustments to farm labour benefit and wage rates, use of a real rate of return, and addition of a risk premium.

After hearing extensive expert testimony from all parties, the Tribunal found the expert evidence presented by the respondent and third party to be more reliable and acceptable on all six issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report for the Michener Municipal Drain, arguing that the proposed works should be paused until improvements to the downstream Wignell Drain were completed to prevent exacerbated flooding on his golf course.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Wignell Drain currently lacks sufficient capacity to act as an outlet for the increased flow from the Michener Drain.

The Tribunal ordered that the Michener Drain works be paused until the Wignell Drain report and necessary outlet improvements are completed.

The appellant's request to reduce engineering costs was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as no prerequisite appeal had been made to the Court of Revision.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario denying a request to reverse the cancellation of Quota Session QT-3-2018.

After hearing the evidence of the appellants, their counsel advised the Tribunal that all appellants wished to withdraw their appeals.

The appeals were withdrawn and no costs were sought.

The appellants, a dairy farm and its owner, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to cancel their milk operating licence.

The cancellation followed a third shut-off from the milk market within a 24-month period due to elevated somatic cell counts and abnormal freezing point estimates.

The appellants argued the quality issues were caused by defective robotic milking equipment and poor technical support.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's decision, finding that the appellants had received numerous warnings and failed to take timely corrective action, such as returning to a pipeline milking system, thereby posing an unacceptable risk to the safety and integrity of the milk marketing system.

The appellants appealed a drainage assessment under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

During the hearing, the municipality's drainage engineer testified and mentioned a recent municipal council decision offering property owners a 20-year payment option for assessments.

The appellants, who were previously unaware of this option, requested a recess and subsequently withdrew their appeal.

The Tribunal confirmed the withdrawal and concluded the hearing.