Jane Sadler Richards

The appellants brought an appeal under the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

In this costs decision, the Tribunal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent municipality's costs of $49,536.80.

The Tribunal found the appeal was frivolous, pursued without reliable evidence, and improperly delved into issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction despite preliminary rulings.

The Tribunal denied costs to the other landowners who attended the hearing.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Coleman Municipal Drain 2013.

They argued that the installation of HDPE pipes did not comply with industry standards, specifically regarding pipe dropping, excavation for bell ends, joint alignment, gasket placement, haunching, and traffic over the pipe, which they theorized would lead to tree root intrusion.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the construction fell below the 'first class workmanship' standard required by the Engineer's Report.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Reconsidered Drainage Report for the Fourth Concession Drain East and Cutoff Drains under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed $381,000 project, which expanded from simple requests for culvert replacements into a complete reconstruction and diversion, was unnecessary and too costly.

The Tribunal found that there were no significant drainage problems justifying the extensive works and that the estimated costs were not commensurate with the benefits to be derived.

The Tribunal granted the appeals, set aside the Report, and ordered the Town to proceed with the requested culvert replacements using an existing 1993 report.

The appellants, who immigrated from Holland to purchase a dairy farm in Ontario, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request to transfer an additional 25 kg of milk quota from the farm's seller.

The appellants argued their situation was unique and extraordinary because they had already sold their Dutch farm and committed to the purchase before realizing the full quota could not be transferred under DFO policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants proceeded with the purchase with full knowledge of the reduced quota and that their circumstances were neither exceptional nor outside their control.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act.

The Tribunal found that the NFU-O did not have standing to apply because it did not represent farmers in the province, but rather acted as a passive legal conduit for the federally incorporated National Farmers Union (NFU) to access stable funding.

The Tribunal also found that, even if the NFU-O had standing, it failed to meet the prescribed criteria for accreditation.

The application was dismissed.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs appeared in support of the application.

Due to the urgent need to finalize annual farming business registration forms, the Tribunal released its decision without reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the NFU-O's application for accreditation, with written reasons to follow.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization.

In this fourth interim order, the Tribunal identified four areas of concern regarding whether the NFU-O meets the statutory requirements, including whether it represents farmers in Ontario, its actual purpose, its provision of advice to government, and its membership fees.

The Tribunal exercised its statutory powers to order the NFU-O to produce various corporate, financial, and membership documents to assist in determining these issues, and scheduled a further hearing.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

Following amendments to the relevant regulation, the NFU-O sought to withdraw its application and immediately file a fresh one.

The Tribunal raised concerns that this might constitute an abuse of process and issued a Second Interim Order seeking submissions.

In this Third Interim Order, the Tribunal declined the NFU-O's conditional requests regarding the withdrawal and directed the NFU-O to either unconditionally withdraw its letters or provide further submissions on the abuse of process issue.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

Following amendments to the accreditation criteria in the Regulation, which applied retroactively to the NFU-O's application, the NFU-O sought to withdraw its existing application and immediately commence a fresh one.

The Tribunal raised concerns that this procedure might constitute an abuse of process, given the substantial resources already expended and the identical nature of the applications under the amended criteria.

The Tribunal issued an interim order directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the withdrawal and fresh application would be an abuse of process and what orders would be appropriate.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal found that the OFA failed to meet several mandatory criteria for accreditation under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93, primarily because persons making payments to the OFA under section 21 of the Act could not be considered 'members' without an explicit membership agreement.

As the Tribunal has no discretion to grant accreditation if any criterion is not met, the application was dismissed.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal evaluated whether the CFFO met the criteria set out in section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal found that while the CFFO met several criteria, it failed to meet others, primarily due to its inability to treat persons making a payment under section 21 of the Act as members without an explicit membership agreement.

As the Tribunal has no discretion to accredit an organization that does not meet all legislative requirements, the application was dismissed.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant used the word 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal issued an interim order requesting written submissions from the applicant and the Minister on whether the presumption of consistent expression applies to the interpretation of the word 'member' in the Regulation.

The applicant farm organization applied for accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted the applicant used the term 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria, raising an issue of statutory interpretation regarding the presumption of consistent expression.

The Tribunal issued an interim order allowing the applicant and the Minister to make written submissions on this interpretation issue.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further documentation regarding a qualification in its auditor's report to ensure compliance with the CICA Handbook.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant used the word 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal issued an interim order directing the applicant and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to provide written submissions on whether the presumption of consistent expression applies to the interpretation of the word 'member' in the Regulation.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal considered whether the payment of the prescribed amount to the Ministry could be treated as a membership fee, concluding it could only if an explicit membership agreement existed.

The Tribunal found that the NFU-O did not meet several prescribed criteria for accredited farm organizations, including those related to membership agreements, audited financial statements, and electoral processes.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the NFU-O's application for reaccreditation.

The applicant farm organization applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal considered whether the mandatory payment provided to the Ministry could be treated as a membership fee, concluding it could only if an explicit membership agreement existed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's practice of conferring membership automatically upon payment contravened the Act.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the prescribed criteria regarding the content and timely submission of its audited financial statements.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the application for reaccreditation.

The appellants appealed decisions of the marketing board regarding requests to rescind quota transactions and amend applications under the Tobacco Transition Program (TTP).

The appellants argued that constant changes to the board's policy and confusing information prevented them from making informed decisions about their quota transfers.

The Tribunal found that the board communicated changes promptly, provided all producers with the same information at the same time, and treated the appellants no differently than other producers.

The appeal was denied.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs requested an extension of time to file submissions regarding the interpretation of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 and O. Reg. 723/93, with the consent of the other farm organizations.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal granted the request, amending its previous interim order to extend the deadline for submissions from July 29, 2011, to August 29, 2011.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs requested an extension of time to file submissions regarding the interpretation of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 and O. Reg. 723/93 in the context of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's reaccreditation application.

With the consent of the involved farm organizations, the Tribunal granted the extension, amending its previous interim order to allow submissions to be filed by August 29, 2011.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs requested an extension of time to file submissions regarding the interpretation of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 and Ontario Regulation 723/93 in the context of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario's application for reaccreditation.

The request was made with the consent of the involved farm organizations.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal granted the request and extended the deadline for submissions to August 29, 2011.