Who is Gertrude Levac?

Gertrude Levac is a member at the Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal with 23 decisions on record from 1997 to 2011. Key areas include administrative law, other tribunals, real estate law.

What tribunal does Gertrude Levac sit on?

Gertrude Levac sits on the Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

What areas of law does Gertrude Levac decide?

Gertrude Levac's most common areas include Administrative Law (22 decisions), Other Tribunals (22 decisions), Real Estate Law (6 decisions). Gertrude Levac has handled 23 decisions across 4 areas.

How many decisions has Gertrude Levac made?

Gertrude Levac has 23 decisions on record from 1997 to 2011.

Who frequently appears before Gertrude Levac?

Representatives who frequently appear before Gertrude Levac include Al Yagminas, Anne Meehan, Caroline Day.

/Adjudicator

minicounsel

Gertrude Levac — Member

Gertrude Levac

Member·Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal·Since 1997

cases · 15 yrs · OAFRAAT

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Member· 22membre· 1

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalFeb 25, 1998

Appeal of milk freezing point penalty dismissed as no error found in testing procedures.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision not to cancel a milk sample test result that led to a penalty for having a freezing point of -0.522 degrees Hortvet, indicating excess water.

The appellants argued there was no financial incentive to add water and suspected a problem with the sampling dipper.

The Tribunal found no evidence of errors in the sampling or testing procedures and upheld the Director's decision to let the test result stand, while recommending that producers be better informed about new freezing point testing procedures.

Schouten v Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, 1998 ONAFRAAT 11

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 3, 1997

Appeals of engineer's report on municipal drain dismissed; expanded watershed and assessments confirmed despite methodological concerns.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report on the MacLaren Drain, challenging the expansion of the watershed boundary and the resulting assessments for repair and maintenance.

The appellants argued that their lands did not benefit from or contribute significantly to the drain, and that the municipality should bear costs for redirecting water.

The Tribunal found that the expanded watershed accurately reflected lands contributing water to the drain.

Although the Tribunal noted the engineer's methodology for calculating assessments and failing to provide Section 29 allowances was not in accordance with prevailing practices, it concluded the final assessments were within an appropriate range.

The appeals were dismissed, and the report was confirmed with minor typographical amendments.

MacLaren Municipal Drain (Re), 1997 ONAFRAAT 43

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalApr 15, 1997

Engineer's report for municipal drain referred back for modification due to insufficient consideration of alternative alignments.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report on the proposed Somerville Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants raised concerns regarding the sufficiency of the outlet, the proposed alignment, the adequacy of allowances, and the assessments.

Expert engineers proposed alternative alignments and raised concerns about potential flooding.

The Tribunal found that insufficient information was presented to decide which alternative was most appropriate and that the engineer's report required modifications to conform with the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer for review of the outlet's sufficiency, investigation of alternate routes, modification of assessments, and inclusion of complete plans and specifications, with no further engineering costs to be charged to the drain for these revisions.

Somerville Drain (Re), 1997 ONAFRAAT 56

Page 2 of 2 (23 cases)

appellant

Al YagminasSelf-represented
1 appearance
Anne MeehanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Caroline DaySelf-represented
1 appearance
Charles FosterSelf-represented
1 appearance
Dave ForsythSelf-represented
1 appearance
Denton MeiklejohnSelf-represented
1 appearance
Douglas SpencerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Edward DaySelf-represented
1 appearance
Jean-Paul CussonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Lise BéliveauSelf-represented
1 appearance
Luc CussonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marcel BedardSelf-represented
1 appearance
Patrick SmithSelf-represented
1 appearance
Richard DupuisSelf-represented
1 appearance
Victor ReasbeckSelf-represented
1 appearance
William BarnumSelf-represented
1 appearance
William BroekSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed landowner

Jayne MunroSelf-represented
1 appearance
Paul CarrierSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed landowners

Barry HarwoodSelf-represented
1 appearance
Claude BourqueSelf-represented
1 appearance
David LaurenceSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed owner

Armand BrunetSelf-represented
1 appearance

au nom de l’intimée, la municipalité

André DesjardinsAgent
1 appearance
Neil LevacAgent
1 appearance

counsel to appellant

Noël BerthiaumeCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the appellant

Pascale GiguèreCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the appellants

Pascale GiguereCounsel
1 appearance
Ron CazaCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the appellants, Michael and Anne Meehan

Don GoodCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the respondent

Peter WechselmannCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the respondent, the Director

Geoff SpurrCounsel
1 appearance

Director, Regulatory Compliance of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario

Peter GouldAgent
1 appearance

Drainage Superintendent for the respondent, the Township of Champlain

Michael St. JeanAgent
1 appearance

engineer who prepared the report

Neil LevacAgent
1 appearance

Engineer who prepared the Report

Gaetan H. LascellesAgent
1 appearance

for 3A and Associates Investments Limited

M. BergmanCounsel
1 appearance

for AGRICORP

Husseinali ShivjiAgent
1 appearance
Judith Kay-SchecterAgent
1 appearance

for herself

Cindy SauveSelf-represented
1 appearance

for himself

Allan SimpsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
David DawsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Guy DurocherSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jean Jacques DemersSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ulrich SchaererSelf-represented
1 appearance
Victor ReasbeckSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Keith MacLennan

Douglas HewsonCounsel
1 appearance

former Reeve of the municipality

Denis PommainvilleSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Montreal Soaring Council, assessed landowner

Walter EkiertAgent
1 appearance

for Ms. Cindy Sauve and assessed landowners

Andrew RobinsonAgent
1 appearance

for the appellant

Bob TolhurstCounsel
1 appearance
David WilsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kenneth AllanSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the appellant, Meat A Chick Inc.

Robert LaplanteAgent
1 appearance
Ronald F. CazaCounsel
1 appearance

for the appellant, Peter Wang

Denis WangAgent
1 appearance

for the appellants

Adrian SchoutenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Arnold SchoutenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Robert TolhurstCounsel
1 appearance

for the Armstrong appellants

Donald ArmstrongSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario

Geoff SpurrCounsel
1 appearance
Gordon CoukellAgent
1 appearance
Grant KennedyAgent
1 appearance

for the O'Neil appellants

Charles O'NeilSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the respondent

Geoffrey SpurrCounsel
1 appearance
Jim McIntoshAgent
1 appearance
Peter GouldSelf-represented
1 appearance
Todd PerryAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Chicken Farmers of Ontario

Geoff SpurrCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, the Director, Resources and Planning Branch, Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs

René HubersAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Russell

Andrew RobinsonAgent
1 appearance

for the township

Mr. ViceCounsel
1 appearance

for William Henderson

W. JohnstonCounsel
1 appearance

on behalf of 104284 Canada Lteé, appellant

Wayne AssalyAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of 483038 Ontario Inc., appellant

André DesjardinsAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of Jean-Paul Cusson, appellant

Jean DecoeurAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Counties of Prescott and Russell, appellant

Marc ClermontAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Director, Resources and Planning Branch, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs

Rena HubersAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Nation Municipality

Neil LevacAgent
1 appearance
Stéphane LeclercAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Champlain

Leo TremblayAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Respondent, the Township of Champlain

Leo TremblayAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Town of Hawkesbury, appellant

Martin BonhommeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Township of West Carleton

Brian CarryAgent
1 appearance
Glen GordonAgent
1 appearance
Jim McIntoshAgent
1 appearance
Todd PerryAgent
1 appearance

représentant l’appelant

Noël BerthiaumeAgent
1 appearance

representing Royal Bourdeau and René Giroux, Jean-Claude Pavan, Ralph (Rapheal) Gour, Royal Bourdeau, René Giroux, appellants

Jean MartelCounsel
1 appearance

representing the Municipality

André DesjardinsAgent
1 appearance

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

0.4

cases/mo

OAFRAAT23(100%)

Decision types

appeal

Page 2 of 2 (23 cases)