Jeffrey J. Hewitt

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) brought a Charter challenge alleging that Sections 2(1) and 5 of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (AEPA) violated the freedom of association rights of agricultural workers at a medical marijuana facility under Section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Tribunal found that the AEPA provides a meaningful process of collective bargaining, including employee choice, independence, and a duty of good faith.

The Tribunal concluded that the absence of a statutory right to strike or a Wagner Act model of collective bargaining did not render the AEPA unconstitutional.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.

The Attorney General brought a motion to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a scheduled constitutional challenge hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would unnecessarily disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in court, and stated that issues of reliability and weight could be addressed during the hearing.

The Attorney General moved to strike portions of the UFCW's affidavit evidence-in-chief on the first day of a constitutional challenge hearing before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was brought too late and would disrupt the hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also noted its broad discretion under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court of law, leaving issues of reliability and weight for later determination.

The appellants appealed the proposed construction of an outlet structure for the Rose Beach Line Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

Following an interim decision requiring the Municipality to obtain an independent engineering report, the Municipality submitted a report from Landmark Engineers Inc. The Landmark Report identified significant shortcomings in the original Spriet Report's design, noting risks of damage from wave and ice forces and potential impacts on longshore sediment transport.

Given the substantial revisions required to address these issues, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the Spriet Report, and ordered the Municipality to bear its own engineering and legal costs.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the engineer erred in providing damage allowances for tree removal and disputed the watershed boundaries and runoff coefficients used to calculate assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence regarding the necessity of tree removal, the appropriateness of the allowances, and the accuracy of the topographical survey and runoff coefficients used for the assessments.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.

The appellants and the OSPE Land Drainage Committee requested a review of a Tribunal decision that dismissed an appeal regarding a municipal drainage petition.

The requesters argued that new evidence (a prior Tribunal decision) and errors of law justified a review.

The Vice-Chair denied the request, finding that case law does not constitute new evidence and that the Tribunal correctly required proof that the petition met the statutory thresholds under Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Rose Beach Line Drain Outlet Structure under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The report recommended constructing a steel sheet piling flume to address severe erosion at the drain's outlet on Lake Erie.

The appellants argued the project was too costly, unnecessary, and poorly designed for a coastal environment.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals, finding the appellants failed to provide expert engineering evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal ordered the municipality to obtain a coastal engineer's review of the design and to secure all necessary agency approvals before proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered that the existing right of way be used for access and approved minor revisions to the assessment schedules.

The Township of Wainfleet applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to complete a new engineering report for the Consolidated South Wainfleet Drain under Section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The current assessment schedule, based on a 1969 report, did not accurately distribute maintenance costs among the branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the request met the requirements of the Act and granted permission to appoint an engineer to procure a new report to vary the assessments.

The applicant municipality applied to the Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend a bylaw for a municipal drain.

During construction, existing utilities were found in different locations than shown on the original plans, necessitating design changes in the field.

The Tribunal found the modifications did not negatively impact the drain's functionality, level of service, or cost, and ordered the bylaw amended to incorporate the as-built drawings.

The appellant appealed his drainage assessment under the Drainage Act, arguing that his land's designation as a provincially significant wetland constituted a change in use warranting a reduction in his assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the statutory threshold for an appeal because his assessment amount had not changed.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held that a change in environmental designation did not constitute a change in the extent to which the lands used the drainage works.

Requests for abandonment of the drain and future damages were also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to follow statutory procedures.

The appellants filed a request for review of the Tribunal's decisions dismissing their appeal regarding a municipal drain and ordering them to pay the municipality's costs of $49,536.80.

The Tribunal limited the review to the costs decision because the request regarding the merits was filed out of time.

The Review Tribunal found no errors of law or fact in the original costs decision, noting the Tribunal has unfettered discretion under the Drainage Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to apportion costs.

The request for review was denied and the stay on the costs award was lifted.

The appellant, a chicken farmer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying his request for an exemption from a $1,768 annual service charge.

The charge was imposed on producers who opted out of the CFO's mandatory digital communication system and chose to continue filing paper forms.

The Tribunal found that the CFO had the statutory authority under Regulation 402 of the Farm Products Marketing Act to impose both licence fees and service charges.

As no other exempted producer was relieved from paying the fee, the Tribunal found no basis to grant the appellant an exemption and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the assessments levied against their property in the Engineer's Report for the Bateman Municipal Drain, arguing that the watershed boundaries were incorrect, certain benefit assessments were unjustified, and specific design changes were needed.

They also claimed the Court of Revision refused to hear their appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Engineer's methodology for distributing costs was fair and equitable, and that design changes must be appealed under section 48, not section 54.

The Tribunal also found the Court of Revision acted correctly in refusing to hear design matters.

The Municipality's request for costs was denied as the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious.

The moving party appealed a decision of the responding party regarding calculated base adjustments for chicken processors and brought a motion for a stay of those adjustments pending the appeal.

The Tribunal held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay that suspends the current policy, but rather maintains the status quo of the existing adjustment policy.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the requested stay, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

Several residential property owners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Sinclair Drain/Virostek Drain 2014 under the Drainage Act, challenging the necessity of the works, the proposed design, and the assessments levied against them.

The appellants argued they should not have to pay for drainage improvements that primarily benefit adjacent agricultural lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed covered drain was the most cost-effective and technically sound solution.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the residential development had obstructed natural surface water flows, and upheld the assessments as fairly distributed using the modified Todgham Method.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) requiring him to provide an email address for communications and suspending his crop quota until compliance.

At the hearing, the CFO conceded and agreed to allow the appellant to communicate in writing.

The Tribunal set aside the quota suspension.

The issue of the prescribed fee for non-digital communications was remitted to the CFO Board for a first-instance determination.

The Norfolk County Roads Department appealed the Engineer's report for the Decou Road Drain, arguing that the assessments for benefit and outlet liability for Branch B were disproportionately levied against the municipality.

The Engineer had assessed 100% of the remaining capital costs and future maintenance costs for Branch B against Norfolk County, while assessing other affected properties at zero dollars.

The Tribunal found that the construction of Branch B offered significant benefit to other directly affected properties and that the assessment of capital and maintenance costs solely against the municipality was inequitable.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the Engineer to revise the Schedule of Assessment for Branch B to include appropriate assessments for benefit and outlet liability against all affected lands.

The applicant farmer purchased a used combine and subsequently hired the respondent dealer to repair its hydraulic system.

After multiple successive failures of the hydraulic pump and motor, the applicant refused to pay the respondent's final invoice of $25,698.10, arguing the repairs were covered by warranty.

The applicant also sought reimbursement for third-party repair costs, downtime, and trade-in losses.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was negligent in its repair procedures and that the repairs were covered by both a 90-day statutory warranty under the Farm Implements Act and a six-month contractual warranty.

The Tribunal absolved the applicant of the $25,698.10 invoice and ordered the respondent to pay $9,217.59 for third-party repair costs, but dismissed the claims for downtime and trade-in losses due to insufficient evidence.