Mary Field

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the replacement of a closed tile drain on agricultural land located in a flood plain.

The appellants argued the proposed 24-inch tile was unnecessarily large, that blowouts were caused by floodwaters rather than inadequate capacity, and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's design standard was reasonable and in accordance with the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Tribunal upheld the construction assessments but ordered revisions to the maintenance assessments and deleted a right-of-way allowance that had been previously paid.

The Tribunal also ordered the municipality to bear the Engineer's hearing costs due to inadequate communication during the process.

The appellant, a chicken producer, experienced high bird mortality due to extreme weather conditions, resulting in an undermarketing of 12,783 kgs. of chicken.

Under the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's Quota Policy 170-2005, he was permitted to re-grow up to 10% of his quota allocation (6,684 kgs.).

He appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal seeking relief to re-grow the remaining 6,099 kgs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the undermarketing policy was a fault-free entitlement designed to address factors like weather, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the weather event was truly unique and exceptional to warrant an exemption beyond the policy.

Sharalea Farms Inc. appealed to the Tribunal regarding alleged defects in a Case IH tractor, a Case IH loader, and a Hardi sprayer purchased from Vandenbrink Farm Equipment.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear disputes involving used farm implements and contractual warranties under the Farm Implements Act.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the tractor and loader, finding that the alleged defects either arose after the applicable statutory and contractual warranties had expired or were not proven to be defects.

However, the Tribunal found that several defects in the sprayer were reported during the contractual warranty period and ordered the dealer to repair or replace the defective components.

The appellant sought compensation for alleged faulty workmanship by the respondent on a tractor transmission repair completed in 2005.

The transmission seized in 2008, and a subsequent repair by another mechanic suggested a set-screw was missing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory and contractual warranties had expired long before the transmission seized.

Furthermore, the evidence did not persuasively establish that the set-screw was never installed, given the tractor operated for three years and 500 hours without issue.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to uphold the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy without adequate notice or a phase-in period, effectively locking producers into the market and causing significant financial losses.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments to the appellants.

The Elphicks petitioned for a municipal drain to address subsurface water issues in their backyard.

The appointed Engineer prepared a report recommending a drain extending across multiple properties, with costs assessed among the landowners.

Several neighbours appealed under s. 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing the drain was unnecessary and provided them no benefit.

Appeals were also filed under s. 54 regarding the Court of Revision's alteration of the assessments.

The Tribunal found a valid drainage problem existed but ordered the drain truncated to minimize costs while still providing a legal outlet.

A majority of the Tribunal also adjusted the benefit assessments, finding the Elphicks were the primary beneficiaries of the works.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their requests for exemptions from a 15% quota transfer assessment implemented in November 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the DFO had the legal authority to levy the assessment, it failed to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness by implementing the policy immediately without adequate notice or consultation, depriving the appellants of the opportunity to manage their business affairs.

The Tribunal ordered the DFO to grant the exemptions and refund the transfer assessments collected from the appellants.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the proposed Elphick Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that no drainage problem existed and that the costs outweighed any benefits.

The Tribunal found that a valid drainage problem existed in the Elphicks' back yard but ordered the proposed drain to be truncated to reduce costs while still providing a sufficient legal outlet.

A majority of the Tribunal also revised the benefit assessments, finding that the Elphick property would be the greater beneficiary of the works.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant, a farming corporation, appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of a crop insurance claim for lima beans damaged by excessive rain.

The appellant argued that the claim should be based on 195 acres rather than 305 acres, claiming the processor erroneously reported the acreage of two separate but related farming entities under the appellant's single contract.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the onus is on the insured grower to verify the accuracy of the reported acreage, and the appellant failed to correct the error before the loss occurred.

At a pre-hearing conference, a third party requested the removal of his personal information from document binders prepared by Agricorp in response to the appellant's motion for discovery.

The Tribunal agreed that the personal information was inadvertently disclosed and ordered the appellant to return all copies of the binders to Agricorp.

Agricorp was ordered to redact any information protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act before returning the amended binders to the appellant and the Tribunal.

The appellant, a vegetable grower, appealed decisions of the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers (OPVG) imposing monetary penalties and license restrictions for marketing cull carrots outside the negotiated pricing agreement.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the processor failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement by not grading the carrots and basing the price on processor recovery.

The Tribunal upheld the monetary penalty and license restrictions relating to carrots, but rescinded the penalties restricting the appellant's licenses for other processing vegetables, finding them unfair and inappropriate.

The appellant brought a motion seeking orders for the discovery of documents, examination for discovery of Agricorp employees, and disclosure of information previously requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA).

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to provide copies of its existing policy manuals and to produce two specific employees as witnesses at the hearing.

The Tribunal declined to order examinations for discovery, noting it would lead to delays and costs, and refused to order the disclosure of FOIPPA information, stating it should not assume the role of the Privacy Commissioner.

The Wine Council of Ontario appealed decisions of the Grape Growers of Ontario to enact a regulation amending sugar grade schedules and to impose late harvest fees.

The Tribunal found that the GGO did not have the statutory authority to unilaterally set sugar schedules, as these schedules are integrally linked to the minimum price of grapes, which is the purview of the Negotiating Agency under Regulation 414 of the Farm Products Marketing Act.

The Tribunal rescinded the GGO's regulation.

Additionally, the Tribunal awarded nominal costs of $500 to the WCO because the GGO unreasonably delayed conceding that it lacked the authority to impose late payment penalties.

The appellants, tobacco growers, appealed decisions of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board (OFCTGMB) denying their requests to rent out 100% of their 2004 marketing quota and to receive funding from a quality assurance program.

The appellants had opted not to grow a crop in 2004 in anticipation of participating in a federal Tobacco Assistance Program (TAP) buyout, which was ultimately delayed.

The Tribunal found that the OFCTGMB had created an expectation regarding the TAP without adequately communicating the risks, but that the appellants also bore responsibility for their business decisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appellants to rent out 80% of their 2004 marketing quota, but dismissed the appeal regarding the quality assurance program funding, as the appellants did not grow a crop and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria.

The appellants, tobacco growers who did not plant a crop in 2004 in anticipation of participating in a federal quota buyout program, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board (OFCTGMB) that allowed them to rent out only 44% of their 2004 marketing quota.

The appellants sought to rent out 100% of their quota after the buyout program was delayed.

The Tribunal found that the OFCTGMB had actively promoted the federal program before details were finalized and did not adequately communicate the risks to growers.

Acknowledging shared responsibility between the OFCTGMB and the individual growers, the Tribunal ordered that the appellants be allowed to rent out 80% of their 2004 marketing quota.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Tulpin Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant raised concerns about the design of the drainage works, the allowances provided to his property, and the assessment of costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding assessments and allowances, finding them reasonable.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the drain's design in part, ordering the engineer to modify the report to maintain an existing lane culvert, redesign the lower portion as an open drain, and provide detailed specifications.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Noble Drain in the Township of Malahide under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued the costs of the proposed drainage works outweighed the benefits and that their assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the drainage project should proceed, as the current drainage capacity was insufficient for modern agricultural practices and the road required improved drainage.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the assessments on the Main Drain, reducing the burden on certain landowners and increasing the special benefit assessment against the Township for upsizing the drain.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a pre-hearing motion to limit or define the scope of a stay resulting from an appeal by Georgian Bay Milk Company (GBMC).

GBMC brought a motion to require DFO to produce all relevant documents.

Canada Milk Inc. also requested to be added as a party.

The Tribunal denied Canada Milk Inc.'s request for party status, finding insufficient commonality with GBMC.

The Tribunal dismissed DFO's motion to limit the stay, finding that lifting it would cause irreparable harm to GBMC before the appeal could be heard on its merits.

The Tribunal ordered DFO to produce the requested documents and set a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board brought a motion requesting the Tribunal refuse to hear an appeal by a tobacco grower regarding a request to transfer Basic Production Quota with marketing quota attached.

The Tribunal found that the grower had not completed the required quota transfer application forms, and therefore had not made an application for a hearing to the Board as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal concluded it had no authority to hear the appeal and granted the Board's motion.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the reconstruction of the Rutherford Drain.

They argued the proposed works were unnecessary, the assessments were unfair, and the engineer acted unprofessionally by entering their property without observing bio-security signage.

The Tribunal found the engineer acted professionally and the works were necessary due to the undersized and aging drain.

However, the Tribunal modified the assessments, reducing the benefit assessment against the McDonald property and increasing it for other benefiting properties.