Gene Trotman

The Town of Lakeshore applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to correct an error in the engineer's report for the Smyth Drain West.

A discrepancy in the topographical survey resulted in unnecessary land allowances being calculated.

The Tribunal granted the application, ordering the correction of the report, the reduction of section 29 allowances, and the revision of the road shoulder specifications, with the consent of the affected landowners.

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, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of his milk quota.

The appellant argued he had planned an orderly exit from the industry prior to the implementation of the assessment policy and raised medical grounds not previously submitted to the board.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the new medical evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, concluding the appellant did not experience undue hardship and his exit from the industry was not imminent when the policy was implemented.

The appellant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for compensation for tractor transmission repairs.

The appellant argued that the original repair by the respondent was faulty, leading to a breakdown three years later.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the respondent's 12-month workmanship warranty had long expired by the time the transmission failed, and therefore the respondent was not liable.

The Township of Southwold applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on the Talbotville Municipal Drain under section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that changes in land use, including major developments and the construction of a new drain that diverted lands, justified the variation.

The application was granted.

The operator of a meat plant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that upheld a Director's compliance order requiring the installation of a water sampling tap at a specific location.

The operator argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly analyze his arguments and that a new environmental report constituted significant new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no error of law in the original decision and concluding that the environmental report was merely an opinion document that could have been obtained prior to the original appeal.

The Grand River Conservation Authority appealed an engineer's report regarding the West Luther Drain under both section 47 (to the Referee) and section 49 (to the Tribunal) of the Drainage Act.

A pre-hearing conference was scheduled for the section 49 appeal.

The appellant argued the pre-hearing conference was premature because the section 47 appeal could result in the engineer's report being altered or cancelled.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it premature to proceed with the section 49 appeal while the legality of the engineer's report was being challenged before the Referee.

The pre-hearing conference was postponed sine die.

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 appellant, a chicken processing company, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) imposing a supply utilization penalty of $9,548.16.

The penalty arose after the appellant acquired the entire calculated base of another processor without inquiring about potential liabilities.

The Tribunal upheld the CFO's decision, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and that the penalty was imposed in accordance with the CFO's governing laws and policies.

Several landowners and the Township of South-West Oxford requested an extension of time under section 100 of the Drainage Act to appeal the quality of construction of the Clear Creek Drain.

The Tribunal found genuine dissatisfaction with the construction quality based on the provided documentation.

The Tribunal granted the extension, allowing the parties 40 working days to file their appeal under section 64 of the Act.

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.

The Township of Gordon applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the maintenance assessment on the McKay-Clover Hill Dairy Drain.

The original assessment was outdated due to land annexations and subdivisions.

The Town of Gore Bay, the only other affected municipality, supported the application.

The Tribunal found the statutory criteria were met and granted the Township permission to appoint an engineer.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for a proposed municipal drain, arguing the design lacked a sufficient safety margin for flooding and would damage mature trees on their property line.

The Tribunal found the drain design was technically sound and adequate for a 100-year storm event.

While acknowledging the potential trauma to the trees, the Tribunal concluded the overall area would benefit from the drainage works and urged the municipality to address tree preservation and compensation in the subdivision agreement.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to minor modifications to the engineer's report regarding road elevations and maintenance.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Branch 'A' Dennis Robertson Drain.

The appellant requested the relocation of an existing tile drain off his property and disputed the assessment of costs for this relocation.

The Tribunal found that the assessments made by the engineer were fair and reasonable, as the appellant was the sole beneficiary of the relocation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Revision to exempt the appellant's property from maintenance costs was confirmed.

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 appellants filed a petition for drainage with the City of Welland under the Drainage Act due to flooding on their property.

The City failed to respond within the prescribed 30 days, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The City brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a registered subdivision agreement under the Planning Act governed the property's drainage and that Section 71 of the Planning Act prevailed in the event of a conflict.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no conflict between the specific provisions of the two Acts.

The Tribunal ordered the City to accept the petition and appoint an engineer to examine the area and prepare a report.

The Tribunal reviewed its previous decision regarding the assessment of the Municipality's costs against the appellants in a dispute over the Eden Grove Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that they did not appeal the engineer's report on the advice of the Municipality, and that the Municipality chose the engineer.

The Tribunal found this rationale sound and reduced the costs assessed against the appellants, ordering the balance to be paid from the Municipality's general funds.

The appellant appealed under Section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of the Ross Drain 2004.

The parties reached an agreement through Amended Minutes of Settlement to address deficiencies in the construction, including issues with lateral tiles, topsoil, and upstream berms.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfactory and ordered the parties to complete the undertakings, adding $1,423.13 to the final cost of the project.

The appellants appealed a Court of Revision decision that removed assessments against certain lands (the Kilbride lands) for the repair and improvement of the Dykeman Pumping Works.

The appellants argued that the Kilbride lands benefited from the Dykeman system and should share in the costs.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Kilbride lands were within the Dykeman watershed and relied on its embankments and channels for flood protection.

The Tribunal reinstated the engineer's original assessments, with one minor clerical correction, and dismissed the request to modify the drainage works by constructing a separating berm.

The appellants appealed a Court of Revision decision that removed the Kilbride lands from assessments for the repair and improvement of the Dykeman Pumping Works.

The Tribunal found that the Kilbride lands are within the Dykeman watershed and benefit from its flood protection, particularly during large storm events.

The Tribunal granted the appeal under section 54 of the Drainage Act, reinstating the engineer's assessments with one clerical correction, and dismissed the appeal under section 48(1)(b) to modify the drainage works.