Denis Perrault

The applicant farmer purchased a used combine and subsequently hired the respondent dealer to repair its hydraulic system.

After multiple successive failures of the hydraulic pump and motor, the applicant refused to pay the respondent's final invoice of $25,698.10, arguing the repairs were covered by warranty.

The applicant also sought reimbursement for third-party repair costs, downtime, and trade-in losses.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was negligent in its repair procedures and that the repairs were covered by both a 90-day statutory warranty under the Farm Implements Act and a six-month contractual warranty.

The Tribunal absolved the applicant of the $25,698.10 invoice and ordered the respondent to pay $9,217.59 for third-party repair costs, but dismissed the claims for downtime and trade-in losses due to insufficient evidence.

The appellants appealed their assessment for the Broken Second Municipal Drain, arguing that their property drained into a different watershed and that they were being assessed twice for the same land.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence, based on field observations, that the land drained into the new municipal drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Revision's minor reductions to the appellants' assessment, and ordered a notation on the overlapping drain's file to prevent future double assessment.

The Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens (UCFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its eligibility for special funding under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the statutory criteria, including the organization's role in promoting francophone awareness of agriculture, providing education, and maintaining ties with other agricultural organizations.

Finding that the UCFO met all conditions and criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and renewed the special funding eligibility for a three-year period.

The appellants appealed their assessments under the Engineer's Report for the Dowdall Municipal Drain.

They argued that the municipality should be 100% responsible for the costs of two sections of the drain due to the construction of a road culvert and past illegal reconstruction.

The Tribunal found that the improvements provided benefits beyond the road culvert and that the construction costs were fairly assessed to upstream landowners.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the Thorpe-Ellis Municipal Drain, arguing that his outlet assessment was too high because a portion of his land drained into a different drain.

The Tribunal found a minor discrepancy of 3.4 acres in the calculated drainage area.

To ensure the total assessed area did not exceed the appellant's total land ownership, the Tribunal ordered a $130.00 reduction in the appellant's assessment, adding the amount to the municipality's road assessment.

The Tribunal also ordered revisions to the Assessment Schedule and the rescission of the provisional by-law until the schedule was updated.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's adjustment of his crop insurance claim for his 2007 pepper, eggplant, pumpkin, and melon crops.

Following a previous Tribunal order, the appellant provided receipts for expenses, but failed to provide a summary list allocating products and labour to the insured crops.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to receive a full 80% payment and upheld Agricorp's revised claim calculation, ordering Agricorp to pay the balance of $669.59.

The appellant farmer appealed Agricorp's adjustment of his crop insurance claims under the Fresh Market Vegetable Plan.

Agricorp disqualified several crops for failing to meet the two-acre minimum requirement and reduced the claims for the remaining crops based on 'non-incurred costs' and poor farm management practices.

The Tribunal upheld the disqualification of the pepper crop, finding the producer is responsible for reporting accurate acreage.

However, the Tribunal found Agricorp improperly deducted for poor farm management practices (such as weed control and plant spacing) that did not directly or indirectly contribute to the wildlife damage suffered by the pumpkin and melon crops.

The claims were remitted to Agricorp for recalculation.

The appellants, organic turkey farmers, appealed a regulation by the Turkey Farmers of Ontario (TFO) requiring turkeys raised in non-confinement or open-air systems to be kept under a solid roof.

The appellants argued this would make organic certification impossible and financially unviable.

The TFO argued the regulation was necessary to prevent the spread of avian influenza from wild birds to domestic flocks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the TFO was justified in implementing the regulation as a preventative measure against avian influenza, and that the added cost to organic producers was outweighed by the safety benefits to the industry.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp denying their claim for their 2007 forage crop under the Forage Rainfall Plan.

The appellants argued that the rainfall station used by Agricorp did not accurately reflect the drought conditions on their farm and sought $7,695.00 for additional feed expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had chosen the coverage options and rainfall station, and that Agricorp's system for measuring rainfall was fair and equitable.

The Tribunal noted it lacked jurisdiction to order Agricorp to relocate its weather stations.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Winger Road Municipal Drain.

The appellants challenged the location of the drain and the assessments levied against their properties.

The Tribunal upheld the location of the drain as recommended in the engineer's report, finding it maintained a balance of shared responsibility and minimized effects on all properties.

However, the Tribunal ordered adjustments to the benefit assessments to provide a more equitable distribution, decreasing the assessments for downstream properties and increasing the assessment for the upstream property that gained significant outlet benefit.

The Tribunal also ordered modifications to the drain design to protect mature trees and provide buffer protection on the south side of the ditch.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding his crop insurance claims for Red Spring Wheat and Soybeans following a season with excessive rainfall and severe weed conditions.

Agricorp had offered a reduced payout for the wheat based on comparative yields and denied the soybean claim entirely due to crop abandonment and destruction of evidence.

The Tribunal found that while excessive rainfall was an insurable peril, the appellant's losses were largely due to uninsurable factors including poor farm management and weed pressure.

The Tribunal upheld Agricorp's calculation for the wheat loss and dismissed the soybean claim.

The Tribunal re-determined an appeal regarding a crop insurance claim adjustment after the Superior Court of Justice remitted the matter back.

The issue was whether Agricorp mailed a letter notifying the appellant of an option to change rain stations.

Based on the evidence, including Agricorp's failure to produce the individual who mailed the letter or electronic confirmation, the Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the letter was not mailed.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant be treated in the same manner as other insured persons who were not informed of the new rain stations.

Two landowners appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Bibeau-Pilon Drain.

One appellant sought compensation for tractor damage caused by a failed culvert and requested the cancellation of a proposed branch drain (Branch C).

The other appellant sought a reduction in his drainage assessment.

The Tribunal denied the claim for tractor damage because the appellant failed to provide the required statutory notice to the municipality.

The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of Branch C and the corresponding revision of assessments, as neither the requesting landowner nor the assessed landowner wanted it.

The appeal to reduce the second appellant's assessment was dismissed, as the Tribunal found the engineer's assessment to be fair and just.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding their 2005 forage crop insurance claim.

They argued they did not receive a letter notifying them of a new rain station in their township, which would have allowed them to select a more favourable station.

Agricorp argued the letter was deemed received under the contract.

The Tribunal found that Agricorp had communication problems and failed to notify many growers.

Applying the deeming provision would be unfair.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to readjust the claim based on the rainfall data from the highest paying rain station the appellants could have selected.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his claim under the Forage Rainfall Plan for his 2005 forage crop.

The appellant argued that his farm experienced severe drought and that he was unfairly denied a payout while neighbours in adjacent townships received one.

The Tribunal found that Agricorp correctly applied the terms of the area-based insurance contract, which relies on geographic townships and selected rain stations rather than individual farm yields.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the adjustment of its 2005 forage crop insurance claim, arguing it never received a letter from the respondent offering the option to switch to a more beneficial rainfall station.

The respondent maintained the letter was sent in a mass mailing and was deemed received under the contract.

The Tribunal found that the respondent, holding superior knowledge and a fiduciary-like position, failed to adequately communicate the options and should have followed up on non-responses.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the claim readjusted using the more beneficial rainfall station.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the appeal, finding the letter was mailed and the onus shifted to the appellant.

Dairyland Transport Co-operative appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to support its proposal for compensation to milk transporters for displaced milk volume.

Dairyland argued that transporters lose uncompensated volume when producers exit the industry or reduce quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the DFO's mandate is to serve milk producers, not to guarantee business returns for transporters, and that the proposal was not fair and equitable to all transporters.

The appellants appealed Agricorp's decision denying a reseeding claim for 700 acres of soybeans planted in April 2005.

Agricorp argued the early planting did not constitute Good Farm Management Practice.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had extensive farming experience, planted during favourable soil conditions, and that Agricorp had unilaterally decided not to cover early-planted soybeans without notifying the insured.

The Tribunal concluded the appellants engaged in Good Farm Management Practice and ordered Agricorp to pay the $42,000 reseeding claim.

The appellant, Ledgecroft Farms Inc., appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of its claim for its 2005 forage crop under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Forage.

The appellant argued that the assigned rain station did not accurately reflect the drought conditions on its farm and sought a higher payout of $46,000.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant experienced drought, Agricorp had correctly adjusted the claim according to the parameters of the crop insurance contract and the forage plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting it did not have the authority to override the insurance policy.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the apportionment of assessments for the Gauthier Municipal Drain.

The Court of Revision had increased the benefit liability from 40 percent to 70 percent for certain properties, shifting more costs to the appellant.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the benefit to the affected properties was not significant enough to warrant the Court of Revision's increase.

The Tribunal ordered the apportionment of assessments to be adjusted to 40 percent outlet and 60 percent benefit, reflecting a reasonable ratio proportionate to the respective improvements.