Doug Flook

The appellant appealed Agricorp's decision to deny his claim for yield losses on his 2006 soybean crop.

Agricorp denied the claim on the basis that the appellant failed to report damage during the growing season and that the low yield was inconsistent with other growers in the area.

The Tribunal found that the crop was damaged by excessive rainfall, an insured peril, and that the appellant's reporting process was consistent with previous years where claims were paid.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's estoppel argument and ordered Agricorp to pay the claim based on the reported yield.

The appellant, a farming corporation, appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of a crop insurance claim for lima beans damaged by excessive rain.

The appellant argued that the claim should be based on 195 acres rather than 305 acres, claiming the processor erroneously reported the acreage of two separate but related farming entities under the appellant's single contract.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the onus is on the insured grower to verify the accuracy of the reported acreage, and the appellant failed to correct the error before the loss occurred.

The appellants appealed their assessment for the replacement of an agricultural access culvert over the Deslippe Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued their property was too far from the culvert to benefit and requested that the municipality pay the assessment since it was under $50.

The Tribunal found the engineer's assessment fair and equitable, noting the appellants' property contributed water to the culvert.

The Tribunal also held that waiving assessments under $50 is at the municipality's discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's refusal to pay a claim related to his 2005 forage crop.

Agricorp had made administrative errors regarding notification of new rain stations and re-assigned many customers to higher-paying stations, but excluded the appellant because he had received a notification letter.

However, Agricorp paid a claim to another customer in the exact same circumstances as the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not treated fairly and equitably, and ordered Agricorp to re-adjust his claim using data from the higher-paying rain station.

The Court of Appeal remitted the issue of penalty back to the Tribunal for reconsideration regarding the appellants' illegal sales of tobacco.

The appellants argued the penalty of cancelling 100% of their basic production quota was disproportionate compared to other cases.

The Tribunal found no mitigating factors and held that the illegal sale of tobacco strikes at the heart of the regulated system.

The Tribunal confirmed the cancellation of all basic production quota but clarified the appellants could apply to purchase quota in the future.

The appellant, a vegetable grower, appealed decisions of the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers (OPVG) imposing monetary penalties and license restrictions for marketing cull carrots outside the negotiated pricing agreement.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the processor failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement by not grading the carrots and basing the price on processor recovery.

The Tribunal upheld the monetary penalty and license restrictions relating to carrots, but rescinded the penalties restricting the appellant's licenses for other processing vegetables, finding them unfair and inappropriate.

The appellant hog producer appealed a decision of the Ontario Pork Producers’ Marketing Board denying his request for a payment adjustment on two loads of hogs shipped to Quebec instead of the U.S. The appellant argued he lost money because the Quebec processor no longer offered a heavy hog grid.

The Tribunal found that while the OPPMB was not responsible for the specific decision to ship the hogs to Quebec, it was partially responsible for failing to inform the transporter that the heavy grid was no longer available.

The Tribunal ordered the OPPMB to compensate the appellant for future losses resulting from the effect of the Quebec shipments on his rolling average index.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's adjustment of her claim for her 2003 cucumber crop.

AGRICORP had initially cancelled her contract alleging misrepresentation regarding late planting and unharvested acres, but later reinstated it and offered a settlement of $18,663.93, deducting investigation costs.

The Tribunal found no deliberate intent to misrepresent but agreed with AGRICORP's calculation of late planted acres and the appellant's failure to obtain permission before abandoning acres.

The Tribunal ordered AGRICORP to pay $24,747.15, finding no contractual basis to deduct investigation costs.

The Wine Council of Ontario appealed decisions of the Grape Growers of Ontario to enact a regulation amending sugar grade schedules and to impose late harvest fees.

The Tribunal found that the GGO did not have the statutory authority to unilaterally set sugar schedules, as these schedules are integrally linked to the minimum price of grapes, which is the purview of the Negotiating Agency under Regulation 414 of the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The Tribunal rescinded the GGO's regulation.

Additionally, the Tribunal awarded nominal costs of $500 to the WCO because the GGO unreasonably delayed conceding that it lacked the authority to impose late payment penalties.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the construction of a municipal drain, arguing their assessment was too high and the allowances provided to the neighbouring property were inappropriate.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' property would benefit from the cut-off of surface waters and improved outlet, justifying the assessment.

The Tribunal also held that the allowances for right-of-way and damages were reasonable.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Sinclair Drain, arguing his property was outside the watershed and received no benefit.

The engineer testified that the drain provided a cut-off benefit by preventing water from crossing a road and flooding the appellant's property.

The Tribunal found that while the risk of flooding was minimal, the drain did provide a cut-off benefit by alleviating that risk.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessments.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed McFeeters Petition Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the drain's design, potential downstream impacts, cost-benefit justification, watershed definition, and the equity of the cost assessments.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's design, finding no significant downstream impacts and concluding the project was cost-beneficial without requiring a formal economic analysis.

However, the Tribunal found that the assessments were not entirely equitable and ordered adjustments to increase the benefit assessments for municipal roads, a hydro property, and one specific landowner, while proportionally decreasing the outlet liability for agricultural lands.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from a regulation prohibiting the rental of 100% of his marketing quota.

The appellant argued that a sudden and severe deterioration in his health prevented him from growing a crop in 2004 and that he made reasonable efforts to find a sharegrower.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's health constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that he had made reasonable efforts to secure his crop.

The appeal was granted, and the marketing board was ordered to allow the appellant to rent out 100% of his marketing quota for the 2004 crop year.

Zantingh Direct Inc. brought a motion for early disclosure of expert reports, witness statements, and documents from the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board in an ongoing appeal regarding 'off-sort' or 'lightweight' hogs.

The moving party argued that the responding party's lack of timely disclosure prejudiced its ability to prepare for the hearing.

The responding party argued it was not obligated to provide reasons for policy decisions but agreed to a schedule to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the exchange of documentary evidence, expert reports, and witness statements at least 30 days prior to the continuation of the hearing, with reply materials due 7 days prior.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's adjustment of his 2002 corn crop insurance claim.

The appellant suffered crop losses due to drought, but AGRICORP reduced his guaranteed production due to poor farm management practices, including inadequate fertilizer application and weed control, and attributed undeclared corn to his yield.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP's investigation was thorough and its adjustment was fair, ordering AGRICORP to pay the previously offered settlement amount of $34,200.64.

The appellant, a dairy farmer and member of a transport co-operative, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) that reassigned his milk pick-up to a different transporter as part of a route rationalization.

The appellant argued this would cause him to lose his co-operative membership and associated financial benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the DFO acted within its authority and that the rationalization achieved significant cost savings for the dairy industry as a whole, which outweighed the appellant's individual preference.

The Tribunal also denied the appellant's request for compensation.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding a penalty for a positive inhibitor test on a milk sample taken from his farm.

The appellant argued that his record keeping was adequate and that the positive test result was impossible given his practices.

The Tribunal found that the laboratory test was conclusive for the presence of cephapirin in the milk and that there was no evidence the inhibitor was introduced anywhere other than the farm.

The Tribunal denied the appeal and upheld the prescribed penalty.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Evert Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

They challenged the assessments on their properties, the assessment on the Evert property, and the allowances provided to the municipality for constructing branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the assessments for statutory benefit and outlet liability were appropriate and within the acceptable range.

The Tribunal also found that while the municipality's process of constructing the branch drains before the report was finalized was flawed, the allowances provided were lower than the actual costs and therefore fair.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and Court of Revision decision regarding the Isley Branch of the Coulson Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant did not object to the proposed drainage works but argued its assessment share was unfair.

The Tribunal found the engineer's 90:10 statutory benefit to outlet ratio improper and adjusted it to 75:25.

The Tribunal also varied the benefit split between the appellant and the neighbouring property from 50:50 to 40:60, recognizing the appellant already had a direct outlet to the main drain.

The appeal was allowed in part and the assessment schedule was varied accordingly.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) cancelling their milk production licenses and quotas.

The DFO had penalized the appellants for shipping milk outside the DFO system to a U.S. broker in violation of DFO Regulation 08/03 and for ignoring 'cease and desist' orders.

The Tribunal found that the appellants deliberately contravened the regulations and disregarded the orders.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the appellants' licenses but reduced the quota cancellation penalties, ordering the remaining quota to be sold on the exchange or forfeited.