Ed Mailloux

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report on the reconstruction of a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that the drainage problems were caused by urban encroachment and that her agricultural property was unfairly assessed for the costs of upgrading the drain to accommodate residential runoff.

The Tribunal found that the statutory benefit assessment on the appellant's lands should be reduced, as the report was driven by the need of upstream lands and increased urbanization.

The Tribunal ordered adjustments to the assessment schedule, reducing the appellant's benefit assessment and increasing the outlet liability for non-agricultural and upstream properties.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the Outlet North Marsh Drain.

They argued that the proposed extension of the drain and erosion control work downstream of Victoria Road was solely for the benefit of a specific property and was necessitated by back-flow from the Thames River, not the drain itself.

The Tribunal accepted the engineering evidence that the erosion was not caused by the Thames River back-flow and that the extension was necessary for a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the report but allowed the assessment appeal in part, ordering a special benefit assessment of $30,000 against the downstream property most at risk from the erosion.

The appellants, downstream landowners, appealed an engineer's report proposing repair and improvement of the Short Drain Branches A and B. They argued the work should be delayed pending a report on the main drain, claiming it lacked sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the appellants failed to provide cogent evidence on any issues and that the main drain provided a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal concluded the appeals were primarily intended to obstruct the municipality's statutory duty to maintain the drains, and ordered the appellants to pay a total of $4,000 in costs.

The appellants, five farmers, appealed a decision by the respondent crop insurance agency regarding the adjustment of their 1999 hay crop under the Forage Plan.

The appellants argued that the computer-simulated yield model used by the agency did not accurately reflect the severe drought conditions they experienced, specifically contesting the initial soil moisture data used.

The Tribunal found that the agency had applied the area-based plan and its simulation model consistently and correctly according to the plan's requirements.

As the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to alter the plan or its methodology, the appeal was denied.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) penalizing him for producing and marketing chicken without quota and failing to report production.

The appellant had an arrangement with a local processor where he exchanged live chickens for processed meat, which he used for personal consumption, family weddings, and charitable donations.

The Tribunal found that the chicken used for personal consumption was exempt from reporting.

However, the chicken used for family weddings and charitable donations constituted unreported marketing.

Recognizing the charitable nature of some donations as a mitigating factor, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and reduced the quota reduction penalty.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying a crop insurance claim for its 1999 Spanish onion crop.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement for $54,223.30.

The Tribunal endorsed the settlement and allowed the appeal to the extent of the settlement amount.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that revoked his licence to produce tobacco and cancelled his 10,000 pounds of Basic Production Quota and 1999 Marketing Quota.

The appellant had previously pled guilty to Excise Act charges for selling tobacco to an unlicensed buyer.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the Basic Production Quota but allowed the appellant to market his 1999 marketing quota, finding that he had a reasonable expectation to market his 1998 carryover crop.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the 8th Concession East Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the Minutes of Settlement, which amended the assessment schedule and relocated a borrow pit, and ordered the engineer and the municipality to modify the report, tender documents, and by-law accordingly.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed Huys Drain.

They argued that the proposed covered drain would damage their property, affect their water well, cause erosion, and potentially harm threatened softshell turtles.

They also contested the 'cut off' benefit assessment.

The Tribunal found the engineer's design appropriate, noting it was the most direct and natural route and would require the least maintenance.

The Tribunal also upheld the assessment, finding that the works would provide substantial protection from further washouts on the appellants' property.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Knudsen Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellant argued that the benefit assessment on their property was too high, as their land did not suffer from poor drainage or ponding, unlike upstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the drain on the appellant's property was to provide an outlet for upstream lands, not to benefit the appellant's land.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be amended, reversing the benefit-to-outlet ratio for the appellant's property from 60% benefit / 40% outlet to 40% benefit / 60% outlet.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the Bellcreft Beach Drainage and Pumping System under the Drainage Act, challenging the proposed assessments and suggesting modifications to the drainage works, including a retention pond.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the engineer's flat-rate assessment approach appropriate given the uniform level of protection provided to the area.

The Tribunal also declined to order modifications, noting the lack of engineering evidence supporting the appellants' proposed alternatives.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal regarding the 8th Concession East Drain.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal involved allegations of negligence and substandard work related to a 1991 repair, which were also the subject of a motion before the Referee.

To avoid duplicate proceedings and potentially conflicting decisions, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and deferred to the Referee's jurisdiction to determine the necessity of the work, cost allocation, and liability.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed Watson Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, the work should be modified, and his assessment was too high.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant provided no evidence to support modifying the work or challenging the cost-benefit ratio.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments as modified by the Court of Revision, finding them fair and appropriate based on the acreage draining into the proposed drain.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario denying his claim for 94 acres of unharvested coloured beans.

The appellant argued the failure to harvest was due to the insured peril of excess moisture, while the respondent argued it was due to poor management and delayed notice.

The Tribunal found that the loss was caused by a combination of factors, attributing 50% to the insured perils of spring drought and fall excess moisture, and 50% to uninsured perils including poor management practices.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to allow a loss of 34,269.28 lbs, applying a late harvest reduction.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario (AgriCorp) denying his 1995 crop insurance claims for soybeans and corn.

AgriCorp alleged the appellant understated his soybean yield and attempted to defraud the fund by claiming recent sales were from carryover beans stored from previous years.

The Tribunal found that AgriCorp failed to meet the higher onus of proving fraud or dishonesty, noting the appellant's explanations were reasonable and not substantially contradicted.

The Tribunal ordered AgriCorp to process the appellant's 1995 claims as submitted.

The appellant appealed the Crop Insurance Commission's decisions denying him a separate insurance contract from his father and denying his claim for corn crop loss.

The Tribunal found the appellant ineligible for a separate contract because his father sharecropped his home farm and paid taxes on their jointly owned farm, indicating they did not have separate farming operations.

However, the Tribunal partially allowed the corn crop claim, finding that while the appellant contributed to the loss through late planting of a long-maturing variety and failing to report damage, an insured peril of excess rain delayed the initial planting.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay 75% of the potential production claim.

The appellant farmer appealed the denial of a crop insurance production claim for his corn crop.

Agricorp denied the claim because the appellant failed to report the damage before harvest, as required by the regulations.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant failed to report the potential claim before harvest, he was a first-time insured who had reported a need to reseed earlier in the season.

Finding that the crop damage was caused by a combination of insured and uninsured perils, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal, ordering Agricorp to pay a reseeding benefit and 60% of the potential production claim.