Jim Rickard

The appellant, Van Moorsel Farms Ltd., appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to reverse a transfer of 10,008 units of basic quota to a purchaser and refusing to allocate an additional 6,500 units of basic quota to the appellant.

The appellant argued that because it had not been fully paid for the quota at the time the CFO announced a new quota conversion policy, it retained property rights in the quota and was entitled to the new allocation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that quota is a revocable license, not personal property, and that the appellant had initiated the transfer before the policy freeze date, rendering it ineligible for the new allocation.

The applicant consulting engineers requested a modification to a municipal by-law concerning drainage works to incorporate a reduction in land allowances and the addition of aquatic habitat enhancements required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The affected landowner consented to the reduction, and the municipality supported the changes.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, directing the engineer to amend the report and the municipality to amend the by-law accordingly.

The appellant, Laplante Combining Inc., appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying its claim for unseeded land compensation (Unseeded Acreage Benefit) in the 2000 crop year.

The appellant argued it had coverage for 2,500 acres, while AGRICORP maintained coverage was limited to 750 acres because the appellant failed to report its increased acreage by the May 1 deadline.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not give effective notice of the increased land base before the deadline and that AGRICORP acted within the terms of the Contract of Insurance in denying the claim.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants, Alexander and Mary Cumming, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for an Ontario milk producer licence without transferring their Quebec quota to Ontario.

The appellants argued that the DFO policy requiring the transfer of Quebec quota was discriminatory and invalid.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had the authority to maintain the policy and that there were no special circumstances warranting an exemption for the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report on the reconstruction of a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that the drainage problems were caused by urban encroachment and that her agricultural property was unfairly assessed for the costs of upgrading the drain to accommodate residential runoff.

The Tribunal found that the statutory benefit assessment on the appellant's lands should be reduced, as the report was driven by the need of upstream lands and increased urbanization.

The Tribunal ordered adjustments to the assessment schedule, reducing the appellant's benefit assessment and increasing the outlet liability for non-agricultural and upstream properties.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Cook-Leddy Municipal Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the necessity of the drain, the location of the outlet, potential pollution of a farm pond, and the apportionment of assessments.

The Tribunal found that the drain was necessary to address excess water and provide a legal outlet.

It declined to relocate the outlet downstream of the pond due to the substantial additional costs that would result.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the drain's construction and outlet location, but set aside the Court of Revision's decision and adjusted the assessments for two of the properties.

The applicant municipality applied under section 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment schedule for the Holland Marsh Drainage System.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal granted the application and issued an order incorporating the settlement terms.

The order included cost-sharing provisions for the report and established procedures for a subsequent application to the Referee regarding legal liability issues.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed a decision by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board to increase the live price of all categories of turkey by 2.0 cents per kilogram.

The Board argued the increase was necessary to offset rising heating and feed costs for producers.

The processors argued that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the turkeys being marketed for the Christmas season, and that processors could not pass on the price increase because wholesale prices were already established.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, directing the Board to rescind the price increase and reinstate the previous pricing order, finding that the cost increases had not yet been incurred on the product being marketed and that processors had little opportunity to recover the increased costs.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision to deny their claims for 1999 hay and pasture crops under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Forage.

The appellants argued that their individual yields were significantly lower than the area-based simulated yields due to drought.

The Tribunal found that the Forage Plan is an area-based plan, not an individual farm plan, and that AGRICORP calculated the claims in accordance with the regulations and the plan's requirements.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed two penalties assessed by the Director for abnormal freezing point test results, which indicate added water in the milk.

The Tribunal upheld the first penalty from July 22, 1999, finding the test results accurate and the penalty validly assessed.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the second penalty from August 13, 1999, because the appellant had only received notice of the first penalty ten days prior, which was insufficient time to resolve the underlying nutritional and equipment issues before the second sample was taken.

The second penalty was ordered expunged and the funds reimbursed.

The appellants, Ontario-based dairy farmers who previously shipped milk to the Quebec market, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for compensation for losses incurred when transferring their quota to the Ontario market.

The appellants argued that the DFO's policy requiring them to transfer all their Quebec quota to Ontario, rather than selling it at a higher price in Quebec and buying cheaper Ontario quota, was unfairly administered.

The Tribunal found that the appellants transferred their quota for their own business reasons and that there was no evidence of special circumstances warranting an exemption to the DFO's policy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) penalizing him for producing and marketing chicken without quota and failing to report production.

The appellant had an arrangement with a local processor where he exchanged live chickens for processed meat, which he used for personal consumption, family weddings, and charitable donations.

The Tribunal found that the chicken used for personal consumption was exempt from reporting.

However, the chicken used for family weddings and charitable donations constituted unreported marketing.

Recognizing the charitable nature of some donations as a mitigating factor, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and reduced the quota reduction penalty.

Three landowners appealed an engineer's report recommending repair and improvement of the Florent-Chretien Drain, arguing the benefits were not commensurate with costs and raising environmental concerns about water quality and beaver dams.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the agricultural benefits of the drainage works justified the costs and that the appellants' environmental concerns, while valid, were better addressed in other forums.

The Tribunal ordered minor modifications to the engineer's report to include natural sediment basins and clarify buffer strip widths.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying a request for an exemption from the policy on the minimum amount of quota that may be fixed and allotted to a premises.

The appellant sought to produce its crop quota in two separate existing barns rather than build an extension to its main barn to accommodate a newly allotted basic quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO's minimum quota policy of 15,000 units per registered premises was applied fairly and consistently, and granting an exemption would be unfair to other producers who complied with the policy.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant an extension of time to complete the required building expansion.

The appellant producer appealed a decision not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a sample of milk taken from his farm, which resulted in a penalty and disposal costs.

The milk was found to contain an unprecedented level of penicillin, far exceeding what could result from milking treated cows.

The Tribunal found that the contamination was the result of third-party action and that the problem could not reasonably have originated from the producer's farming operations.

The appeal was granted, the test result was removed from the record, and the producer was relieved of the penalty and disposal costs.

The applicant consulting engineers requested a modification to a municipal by-law concerning the Malott Diversion Drain to reduce a land allowance and incorporate aquatic habitat enhancements required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The affected landowner consented to the reduction and the municipality supported the changes.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, finding that adequate notice had been given and no affected parties objected.

The appellant, a processing tomato grower, had its 1999 production licence restricted to 300 tons as a penalty for marketing from unmeasured acreage in 1998.

In 1999, a relative of the appellant secured a new grower contract for 1,000 tons.

The respondent Board found that the appellant performed all the field work and effectively produced the relative's crop, thereby circumventing its licence restrictions.

The Board consequently refused to issue the appellant a licence for 2000.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding on a balance of probabilities that the appellant engaged in an arrangement to contravene its 1999 licence conditions, justifying the Board's refusal to issue a 2000 licence.

The County of Elgin appealed an engineer's report regarding the Greer Drains #1 and #2 Outlets under the Drainage Act.

The County argued that the proposed 2-year storm design standard was excessive and that the assessments charged to the County for outlet and benefit were disproportionately high.

The Tribunal found that the proposed design, which accommodated the entire storm flow in the tile drain, was unnecessary and directed the engineer to reconsider the design to utilize the combined capacity of the tile and the existing grassed waterway.

The Tribunal also found that the benefit assessment to the County road was too high and that upstream properties relieved of drainage problems should be assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal ordered the report to be referred back to the engineer for reconsideration and adjustment of the assessments.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying a crop insurance claim for its 1999 Spanish onion crop.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement for $54,223.30.

The Tribunal endorsed the settlement and allowed the appeal to the extent of the settlement amount.