Douglas Flook

Several landowners appealed an engineer's report recommending improvements to the Lawrence Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants, primarily upstream landowners, argued that the existing drain was adequate for their needs and that they would not benefit from the proposed new tile drain.

The respondent municipality and downstream landowners supported the improvements, citing flooding issues and the inadequacy of the 67-year-old existing tile drain to meet modern agricultural drainage standards.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed works were necessary to meet the long-term drainage needs of the watershed and that upstream owners have a legal obligation to contribute to the improvement of their outlet.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying his claim under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Pasture (the Forage Plan) for the 1997 crop year.

The appellant argued that his area experienced severe drought conditions resulting in a 60% to 70% yield shortfall, which was not reflected in AGRICORP's computer-simulated area yield.

The Tribunal found that the Forage Plan is an area-based plan and that AGRICORP had calculated the simulated yield in accordance with the plan's formulas without error or discriminatory treatment.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Tribunal noted significant flaws in the Forage Plan's design.

The appellant appealed the decision of AGRICORP concerning the adjustment of loss under the Crop Insurance Plan for Apples following hail damage to his orchard.

The appellant argued that the plan was unfair, complex, and provided inadequate protection, noting that his payout was only 51% of the damage.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP had calculated the claim settlement in accordance with the policy purchased by the appellant.

As the Tribunal only has authority to adjust the amount of settlement and the calculation was correct under the contract, the appeal was dismissed, though the Tribunal recommended AGRICORP review and improve the plan.

The appellants appealed a decision of AgriCorp concerning a crop insurance claim for corn.

As a preliminary matter, the parties asked the Tribunal to rule on whether AgriCorp had the legal authority to revise a final acreage report after it had been filed and the premium paid.

The Tribunal ruled that under Regulation 222, AgriCorp has a reasonable period of time to review and revise the final acreage report, subject to the insured's right to object.

Following this ruling, the appellants withdrew the balance of their appeal.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Grant Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the drain's capacity should be increased from a 16 mm to a 25 mm drainage coefficient to prevent erosion, and that his assessment was too high.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the drain's capacity, finding the proposed design technically and financially reasonable.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the assessments, ordering the engineer to recalculate the benefit and outlet assessments using a 50/50 split and adjusting the assessed acreage for the appellant's property.

The appellant appealed the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario's calculation of his winter wheat production.

The appellant argued that the Commission's yield calculation based on bin measurements was higher than his actual production as evidenced by weigh slips, resulting in an insufficient claim payout.

The Tribunal found that the Commission followed standard procedures and applied the regulations consistently by paying claims based on yields indicated by bin measurements, which the appellant had agreed to at the time.

The appeal was denied.