Marthanne Robson

The appellant appealed Agricorp's adjustment of his crop insurance claim for his 2007 pepper, eggplant, pumpkin, and melon crops.

Following a previous Tribunal order, the appellant provided receipts for expenses, but failed to provide a summary list allocating products and labour to the insured crops.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide sufficient documentation to receive a full 80% payment and upheld Agricorp's revised claim calculation, ordering Agricorp to pay the balance of $669.59.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission issued a decision significantly changing the powers of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board.

Several pork producers appealed the decision to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Commission brought a motion requesting the Tribunal refuse to hear the appeals under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, arguing the appellants lacked sufficient interest because they had not participated as full parties at the Commission hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the legislation does not require participation at the Commission level to qualify as an appellant.

The Tribunal granted party and intervenor status to various industry groups and adjourned the issue of the statutory stay to a continuation of the pre-hearing conference.

The appellant farmer appealed Agricorp's adjustment of his crop insurance claims under the Fresh Market Vegetable Plan.

Agricorp disqualified several crops for failing to meet the two-acre minimum requirement and reduced the claims for the remaining crops based on 'non-incurred costs' and poor farm management practices.

The Tribunal upheld the disqualification of the pepper crop, finding the producer is responsible for reporting accurate acreage.

However, the Tribunal found Agricorp improperly deducted for poor farm management practices (such as weed control and plant spacing) that did not directly or indirectly contribute to the wildlife damage suffered by the pumpkin and melon crops.

The claims were remitted to Agricorp for recalculation.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Pleasant View Municipal Drain and Branches.

Following adjournments and revisions to the report, the major affected landowners reached a Consent Agreement on revised assessments.

The Tribunal accepted the Consent Agreement, ordered the removal of grant references from the schedules, allocated future lot charges to the Township, and legalized the Northwest Tile Drain with future maintenance costs assigned to the appellants' lands.

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

They claimed that a tee connection was improperly sealed against tree roots and that the construction caused a reverse grade in their private tile drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the evidence of the engineer and contractor that the drain was constructed according to the specifications in the engineer's report and that the appellants' private tile was not disturbed.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine the legal status of a private drain on a neighbouring property.

Finding the appellants' behaviour in pursuing the appeal to be clearly unreasonable, the Tribunal ordered them to pay $6,000 towards the municipality's legal and engineering costs.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report for a municipal drain under the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits were not commensurate with the costs and that the allowances provided were excessive.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence regarding property values was insufficient to adjust the allowances calculated in the report.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but ordered a minor correction to the report regarding the location of a buffer strip, as requested by the engineer.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Phelpston Marsh Drain Improvements, arguing that the costs of the proposed works were excessive and proposing a cheaper alternative.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's alternative proposal lacked engineering analysis and safety features, and did not meet the requirements of the Drainage Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) requested a review of a Tribunal decision, alleging that a panel member had a conflict of interest because he was an active dairy farmer whose corporation had been subject to regulatory action by the DFO.

The DFO also alleged the Tribunal erred in finding an unwritten policy regarding exemptions.

The Tribunal found sufficient merit in the conflict of interest allegations to warrant a review, despite the DFO's delay in raising the issue.

The request for review was granted in part, limited to the conflict of interest issue, to be heard by a different panel.

Two landowners appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Bibeau-Pilon Drain.

One appellant sought compensation for tractor damage caused by a failed culvert and requested the cancellation of a proposed branch drain (Branch C).

The other appellant sought a reduction in his drainage assessment.

The Tribunal denied the claim for tractor damage because the appellant failed to provide the required statutory notice to the municipality.

The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of Branch C and the corresponding revision of assessments, as neither the requesting landowner nor the assessed landowner wanted it.

The appeal to reduce the second appellant's assessment was dismissed, as the Tribunal found the engineer's assessment to be fair and just.