Euclid Mailloux

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario refusing an allocation of additional calculated base.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal considered the appellant's Amended Notice of Appeal, which introduced substantial new claims for relief not previously considered by the respondent.

The Tribunal ruled that the hearing would proceed only on the original claim for additional calculated base, as the respondent had not waived its right to first consider the new claims.

The Tribunal also deferred a jurisdictional challenge based on an arbitration clause in a settlement agreement, directing that it be resolved by a formal motion or arbitration proceedings.

The appellant, a milk producer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to reject a bulk tank of milk due to a 'malty' odour.

The appellant argued that the bulk tank milk grader did not follow proper procedures and that DFO's policy of not allowing second opinions was unfair.

The Tribunal found that the time temperature recorder data corroborated the grader's assessment of a malfunctioning agitator, which led to improper cooling and the malty smell.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection, concluding that the DFO acted within its legislative discretion and that procedural errors did not negate the grader's valid determination.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled hearing due to a scheduling error and requested an adjournment by phone.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and requested costs of $3,000 for travel and witness expenses.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the appellant's error did not warrant dismissing the appeal.

However, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $3,000 in costs to the respondent as a condition of continuing the appeal.

The appellant corporation appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its dairy quota.

The appellant argued that the unexpected terminal illness and death of one of the farm's two primary operators constituted special circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal found that while the circumstances were tragic, the surviving operator was physically capable of continuing the operation and the decision to exit the industry was a personal choice rather than an absolute necessity.

The Tribunal concluded that granting an exemption for a personal decision to exit the industry would improperly expand the special circumstances policy, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a dairy farm manager, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to uphold a non-grade A penalty of $650.66.

The penalty was assessed after a follow-up inspection revealed that requirements for Grade A status had not been met.

The appellant argued he did not receive the initial inspection report.

The Tribunal found that the DFO followed its established policy of leaving the report in the milk house, and that it was the appellant's responsibility to ensure compliance.

The appeal was denied and the penalty upheld.

Jim Jenkins appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) imposing penalties after a truckload of milk tested positive for inhibitory substances (antibiotics) and was traced back to his farm.

Jenkins argued the contaminated milk did not originate from his farm.

The Tribunal found no flaws in the DFO's sampling and testing procedures and noted that Jenkins' farm practices, such as milking treated cows with equipment connected to the main pipeline and failing to withhold milk for the recommended 72 hours after calving, likely caused the contamination.

The Tribunal upheld the penalties and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant farmer received a crop insurance payment from Agricorp for his 2005 canola crop, which was initially deemed unmarketable.

Subsequently, the elevator that purchased the crop issued a retroactive payment to the appellant after the crop was regraded and sold.

Agricorp sought to recover the insurance overpayment.

The appellant appealed, arguing the elevator should take the money back directly.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant conceded he was not entitled to keep the double payment and finding it had no jurisdiction to order the elevator to recover the funds.

The appellant, a canola producer, received a crop insurance payment from Agricorp for his 2005 canola crop due to drought damage.

Subsequently, the elevator where he delivered the crop issued a retroactive payment reflecting higher market values.

Agricorp demanded repayment of the insurance claim, arguing the appellant could not retain both the insurance payout and the market value.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it fair and equitable for Agricorp to recover the overpayment, as allowing the appellant to keep both would result in him receiving significantly more per tonne than other producers.

The Tribunal issued an addendum to its previous decision regarding the Bruce Municipal Drain No. 19 to clarify several orders.

The engineer and the appellant sought clarification on buffer strips, assessments for specific roll numbers, land value of a licensed landfill site, and farm lane crossings.

The Tribunal amended its orders to specify 6-metre buffer strips, adjust equivalent hectares for certain lots, increase the assessment factor for the landfill site, use a 1.0 factor for Section 29 allowances, and allow the appellant to construct two 11-metre farm lane crossings at his own expense.

Appellants appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the Bearss Drain West Branch West in the City of Port Colborne.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works (option 1) were not the most suitable solution and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that the engineer applied sound engineering principles in recommending option 1 and that the assessments were fair and equitable, with the exception of one appellant whose land use was reclassified as a managed forest.

The appeals were largely denied, with minor modifications ordered to the report and construction methodology.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his claim for his 2006 white kidney bean crop.

Agricorp argued the appellant breached his crop insurance contract by failing to harvest the crop, attributing the loss to inadequate farm practices rather than an insured peril.

The Tribunal found that the appellant used good farm management practices and that excessive rain and wet field conditions made harvesting impractical.

The Tribunal concluded that the excess rain constituted an insurable peril and ordered Agricorp to pay the full value of the claim.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Moore Drain.

The report recommended incorporating existing storm sewers into the municipal drain and assessed the appellants for the costs of oversizing and extending the drain previously constructed by a neighbouring developer.

The appellants argued the assessment was unfair and the municipality was deviating from the Act.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding that the engineer employed sound engineering principles in calculating the assessments, the municipality did not deviate from section 31 of the Act, and the appellants provided no expert evidence to refute the engineer's calculations.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Bruce Municipal Drain No. 19.

They challenged the assessments and design, particularly the increased costs associated with fish habitat accommodations required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the fish habitat design changes, finding the engineer was obliged to comply with federal law.

However, the Tribunal directed that the costs of the fish habitat study be assessed to the Municipality, not the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority.

The Tribunal granted the appellant Munro compensation for insufficient outlet and directed that the buffer strips be widened to 6 metres to accommodate excavated spoil.

The Tribunal also directed the engineer to recalculate the assessment for a municipal landfill site using an industrial land value rather than an agricultural one.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp denying a crop insurance claim for a 2006 winter wheat crop.

The appellant argued the yield loss was due to drought, an insured peril.

Agricorp argued there was no evidence of drought and that the appellant had failed to notify them of a change from conventional to organic farming practices.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of drought, noting high yields in the surrounding township, and dismissed the appeal on the basis that the loss was not caused by an insured peril.