Jim Gibb

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision not to insure and pay an adjustment of claim for 138 acres of soybeans, as only 100 acres were recorded in the Final Acreage Report.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had ample opportunity to review and correct the acreage summary but failed to do so through his own neglect.

However, the Tribunal found that including the yield from the unreported 38 acres in the calculation for the 100 insured acres created a double penalty.

The Tribunal ordered AGRICORP to recalculate the claim based on a yield of 13.83 bushels per acre on the 100 insured acres.

Landowners appealed the quality of construction of the Foreman Municipal Drain Improvement under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants raised concerns regarding tree removal, property grading, and the handling of subsurface drains.

The Tribunal found that the drain was generally constructed according to specifications and that tree removal was necessary.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Municipality to perform remedial grading on one property and to connect private subsurface drains to a newly constructed tile drain, awarding compensation to the landowner whose property was used for the new tile drain.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to close the Tillsonburg Auction Exchange and market the 2001 tobacco crop exclusively through the Delhi Exchange.

The appellants argued the decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and based on political bias rather than economic efficiencies.

The Tribunal found that the Board's decision was based on a consideration of a range of economic factors, including efficiencies, broad economic impact, and political capital.

The Tribunal concluded the Board did not err in its procedure or make an unfair decision, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP concerning the adjustment of his crop insurance claim for his 2000 hay crop under the Crop Insurance Forage Plan.

The appellant argued that the computer-simulated yield model unfairly resulted in a significantly lower payout for his farm compared to his neighbours.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP administered the Forage Plan correctly and in accordance with the insurance agreement purchased by the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Tribunal recommended AGRICORP investigate amending the plan to use a fairer 'smart circle' methodology.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny their crop insurance claim for 72 acres of unharvested soybeans.

AGRICORP had denied the claim on the basis that the appellants engaged in improper farming practices by failing to harvest the crop before winter.

The Tribunal found that excessive rainfall and poor field conditions prevented the harvesting of the soybeans, and that being among the last to harvest in an area does not inherently constitute a poor farming practice.

The appeal was partially granted, and AGRICORP was ordered to pay the claim for the unharvested soybeans.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying their requests for allocations of basic chicken quota at no cost.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that the appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter and that part of the appeal related to matters known for more than one year.

The Tribunal granted the CFO's motion, finding that the appellants, who were not registered chicken producers, lacked sufficient interest to challenge the quota allocation policy, and that the appeal regarding the 1986 quota lottery was out of time.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny his crop insurance claim for a reduced soybean yield in 1999.

AGRICORP had denied the claim on the basis that the yield reduction was due to poor farm management practices, specifically inadequate weed control, rather than an insured peril like drought.

The Tribunal found that the yield reduction was caused by a combination of drought (an insured peril) and poor farm management practices (late planting and lack of crop rotation).

The Tribunal ordered AGRICORP to pay 50% of the claim, amounting to $2,109.97.