Nick Doelman

The appellants, tobacco farmers facing criminal charges for illegal tobacco sales, applied to the marketing board for an extension of time to apply for spring rental of their marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of their quota.

The board denied the requests, citing the pending charges and the inability to determine if the appellants were in good standing.

The Tribunal found that the board's decision was unfair, as other producers facing similar charges were allowed to continue producing and marketing tobacco.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and allowed the appellants to rent out the standard 30% of their quota, but denied the request to rent out 100%, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the exemption.

The appellant, a tobacco producer facing unresolved criminal charges for alleged unlawful sale of tobacco, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from the General Regulation 1999-2000.

The appellant sought an extension of the deadline to apply for spring rental of his marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of his quota rather than the standard 30% limit.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted unfairly by treating the appellant differently from other producers facing similar charges who were allowed to continue producing.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the 30% spring rental but denied the request to rent out 100% of the quota, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the latter exemption.

The appellant farm appealed a decision not to cancel an abnormal freezing point test result on a milk sample, which had resulted in a penalty for added or excess water.

The Tribunal found that no water was intentionally added, the abnormal result was likely caused by ice crystals in the bulk tank, and the producer had exercised due diligence in addressing the refrigeration problem.

The appeal was allowed, the test result was ordered expunged, and the penalty monies were reimbursed.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an amended engineer's report for a municipal drain, arguing that their existing private drainage facility should have been incorporated into the design and that they should receive an allowance under section 31 of the Drainage Act.

They also contested the cut-off benefit assessed to their properties.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was restricted to assessment matters and declined to treat it as a rehearing to alter the drain's design.

The Tribunal found that section 31 allowances were inapplicable because the private facility was not incorporated into the municipal works, and upheld the engineer's cut-off benefit assessments as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for the proposed Fekete Drain under the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns about the benefit assessment for an open ditch through their woodlot, the lack of compensation for tree damage, and the size and cost of a farm crossing culvert.

The Tribunal found the benefit assessment for the open ditch was too high compared to downstream properties and ordered it reduced.

However, the Tribunal upheld the engineer's approach to allowances for damages, noting commitments to minimize tree damage during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered the report amended to lengthen the culvert and specify equipment access routes.

The appellant farmer appealed a crop insurance claim adjustment by the respondent regarding 16 acres of corn damaged by frost and drought.

The respondent argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the dispute involved policy and contract terms.

The tribunal found it had jurisdiction because the dispute concerned the assessment of loss, not contract changes.

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to explain all harvesting options to the appellant and that the appellant should not be penalized for attempting to minimize his losses by harvesting the damaged crop as silage.

The tribunal recalculated the claim payout, awarding the appellant the difference between the guaranteed production and the salvage value.

The Township of Middlesex Centre applied to the Tribunal for a modification to By-Law No. 98-074 concerning the Taylor Drainage Works.

Three landowners requested additional work affecting only their properties and agreed to pay the total cost.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to terms including notice to affected parties and a 14-day appeal period.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Jermyn Municipal Drain, requesting that all assessments for benefit and outlet be removed from her property and that no drain be installed.

The appellant argued that a portion of her land would never be cleared for agricultural purposes and should not be assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal found that the property would receive a benefit from the drain as it provides positive control of water flow and potential for increased productive land.

The Tribunal concluded that the engineer used proper methodology and the appellant was treated fairly in relation to other landowners.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal from a marketing-board penalty arising from unreported chicken production and marketing to a processor during three quota periods.

The tribunal accepted that 7,010 kilograms were produced and marketed but not reported, and that the appellants ought to have known of the irregularities, but also accepted evidence that the processor's weighing and reporting practices were manipulated and that mitigating steps were taken before the regulator's investigation began.

The tribunal held that the monetary assessments and production-record adjustments should stand, but reduced the crop quota penalty to the lower end of the range.

The board's decision was therefore varied by substituting a crop quota reduction of three times the unreported kilograms, totalling 21,030 kilograms.