Paula Lombardi

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Golding-Baigent Drain Branch 'E' 2014 under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their property was already systematically tile drained and would not benefit from the proposed drainage works, making their assessment of 43.5% of the project cost excessive.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the proposed drain was to provide an outlet for upstream properties and that the appellants' property received only minimal benefit.

The Tribunal ordered that the assessments be revised, lowering the appellants' assessment and increasing the assessments for the upstream properties.

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Engineer's Report for the Meuller Drain 2014, arguing they were overcharged and seeking a reduction.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer's methods of calculating the assessments, including the benefit rate applied equally on a per metre basis, were reasonable, fair, and equitable.

The appellants failed to provide evidence that their property would not receive a benefit from the drain.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant filed an appeal concerning the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's 300-bird exemption policy.

The Tribunal had previously directed the appellant to restrict his appeal to this specific issue, but the appellant filed a 98-page revised notice of appeal seeking extensive relief beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including damages and declarations of bad faith.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and not made in good faith, as the appellant was using the process to advance a personal political manifesto rather than a genuine dispute.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal pursuant to s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his licence to produce tobacco for the 2014 crop year and retaining the proceeds from the sale of seized unlabelled tobacco.

The appellant admitted to violating the General Regulations by failing to properly label and record tobacco bales.

The Tribunal found that while the seizure and sale of the tobacco (resulting in a $46,000 loss) was an appropriate penalty, the refusal to issue a licence for the 2014 growing season was too severe given the appellant's unblemished record and admission of guilt.

The appeal was partially granted, and the appellant was issued a licence subject to conditions regarding labelling and reporting.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer with a 40-year unblemished record, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that denied his 2014 licence to produce tobacco.

The Board had found that the appellant contravened the General Regulations by failing to immediately affix stickers to bales of tobacco, resulting in the seizure and sale of the unlabelled bales.

The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant violated the regulations and found the seizure of the tobacco to be an appropriate penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the appellant's unblemished record and cooperation, the Tribunal found the refusal to issue a 2014 licence to be too severe and ordered that the licence be granted.

The appellant filed a broad appeal challenging the chicken supply management system, seeking damages, declaratory orders, and a general inquiry into food affordability.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario brought a motion to dismiss or limit the scope of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that it lacked the statutory jurisdiction to award damages, make declaratory judgments, or conduct general inquiries.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction over parties other than the appellant, the CFO, and the Commission, and lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Commission policies and regulations.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeal entirely, allowing the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal restricted to challenging the CFO's 300 bird exemption policy.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming their assessments for the Brock Avenue Drain under the Drainage Act.

They argued their properties did not benefit from the drain and that their assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methods for calculating the assessments based on lot size and runoff factors were technically sound and compliant with the Act.

The appellants failed to provide evidence that their properties would not receive a benefit from the drain.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessments were confirmed.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report proposing improvements to the Matheson Drain, specifically objecting to the twinning of Branches P and R across a downstream property.

The appellant argued the improvements were unnecessary and provided no benefit to his upstream lands.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the existing drains, built to a 1970s standard, required upgrading to a modern 1.5-inch drainage coefficient to prevent excess surface water from flowing onto downstream properties.

Finding no expert evidence to refute the Engineer's assessment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the drainage works to proceed as proposed.

The Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) brought a motion for party status in an appeal by the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding a specialty chicken policy.

The Tribunal applied the test for party status under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that OIPP had a sufficient interest in the subject matter and that its participation would not cause prejudice or delay, the Tribunal granted the motion for full party status.

The Ontario Independent Poultry Processors filed a motion requesting full party status in an appeal brought by the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding the Specialty Chicken Policy.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal granted the motion for party status, with written reasons to follow.

The appellants appealed the assessments and the Engineer's Report regarding the Luckins Drain West and Luckins Drain East.

The appellants argued that they derived negligible benefit from the drain and that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the principles applied by the Engineer to determine the Schedule of Assessments were consistent with the Drainage Act and generally accepted practice.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Court of Revision and confirmed the assessments set out in the Engineer's Report.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act concerning a proposed retaining wall to address bank erosion on her property.

The appellant argued the report was deficient and that the municipality failed to provide the required statutory notice to the conservation authority prior to appointing the engineer.

The Tribunal found that the municipality failed to provide the mandatory 30 days' notice to the conservation authority under section 78(2) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal identified numerous deficiencies in the Engineer's Report, including missing plans, profiles, and specifications required by section 8.

Consequently, the appeal was granted and the Engineer's Report was set aside.

The Regional Municipality appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for a municipal drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the assessments of two landowners and re-allocated the costs to the Regional Municipality and an upstream landowner.

The Tribunal found no substantive evidence to support the Court of Revision's decision and set it aside.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that one of the landowners had requested special modifications to the drain (watertight pipe and rerouting) to prevent agricultural runoff from entering his recreational pond, which added significant extra costs to the project.

The Tribunal ordered that this landowner be assessed a special benefit for the entire extra cost, or be given the option to withdraw his requests and have the drain redesigned.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Haws Drain 2012, arguing that their forested property received no benefit from the proposed drainage works and should not be assessed $911.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's methods for calculating the assessments to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments, noting that the property would benefit from access to a new legal drain outlet, which enhances the property's value.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report on the Jacques Drain 2012 under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the municipality and county should pay a larger share of the project costs and proposing alternative designs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to provide expert evidence to support their proposed alternatives.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the report was prepared in accordance with accepted engineering practices, that a proper cost-benefit analysis was conducted, and that the compensation and allowances were calculated correctly.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waglers appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Gingerich Road Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the Waglers' benefit assessment and increased the Region's assessment.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's original calculations to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal set aside the Court of Revision's decision and confirmed the assessments as set out in the Engineer's Report.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain project designed to convey stormwater and control erosion in a steep gully area.

The appellants argued the project was excessive and unwarranted, suggesting less expensive alternatives like rock riprap.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the design was appropriate for the extreme gradient and high water velocities, and that the appellants' property was properly assessed.

The appeal was denied and the engineer's report was confirmed without modification.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Beets Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his lands did not require additional drainage, that the proposed drain would interfere with his farming operations, and that the allowances provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support modifying the assessments or allowances.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's proposed modifications to the drainage works, finding they did not provide a sufficient outlet as required by the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied and the Engineer's Report was confirmed.

The appellant, a mid-sized pullet growing operation, appealed a decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission denying its request for an exemption from Policy Direction 59.

Policy 59 revoked a grandfather clause that had previously exempted the appellant from having to obtain additional growing rights.

The Tribunal found that the Commission had engaged in a fair consultative process before adopting Policy 59 and that the appellant failed to show the policy was unfair, discriminatory, or unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on several existing municipal drains.

The request was necessitated by the annexation of lands and roads by the City of Woodstock in 2005, which rendered the existing assessment schedules unworkable.

The City of Woodstock and the Township of Norwich supported the application.

The Tribunal found that the requirements of section 76 were met and granted the Township permission to appoint an engineer to procure the necessary reports.