Richard Smelski

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the drain was over-designed, an earth berm was improperly designed, a private drain was illegal, and their lands should not be assessed.

The Tribunal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the design standards appropriate and the private drain legal.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the engineer's report be modified to include a compacted clay key in the earth berm design and to plug an existing tile beneath the berm to properly support wetland development.

The appellants appealed the benefit assessment levied against their property for a municipal drainage project.

The Tribunal reviewed the revised Engineer's Report and found that the proposed drainage works, including a closed pipe and open drain, would significantly improve the property's drainage and increase its value.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefit assessment of $359 was fair and reasonable, confirmed the Engineer's Report, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the revised drainage assessments for their agricultural property under the Drainage Act following two property severances.

The Town had directed the engineer to revise the assessment schedule to reflect the severances, which resulted in a disproportionate assessment per acre for the appellants compared to a similar neighbouring property.

The Tribunal found the engineer's revised assessment was not fair or transparent, as the engineer could not explain the anomalous results or the precise application of his proximity and envelope concepts.

The appeal was granted, and the Tribunal re-balanced the assessments among the severed properties based on the original schedule.

The appellants appealed the assessment applied to their property for the improvement and maintenance of a municipal drain under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

They argued their property was underdrained out of the watershed area and received no benefit from the drain.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the property had a three-metre fall directing surface water toward the drain, indirectly providing an improved outlet.

The Tribunal found the assessment, which had already been reduced by 50% to account for the portion drained out of the watershed, to be fair and reasonable.

The appeal was denied.

Appeals were filed regarding the assessments and engineering fees in the revised Engineer's Report for the Zavitz Municipal Drain and associated branch drains.

The Tribunal held a second interim hearing to review compliance with its previous orders.

The Tribunal issued further interim orders directing the engineer and municipal drainage superintendents to conduct site visits, review culvert sizes, adjust allowances, and reallocate engineering fees between the Town of Fort Erie and the City of Port Colborne.

Three property owners appealed their assessments under the Drainage Act for the repair, improvement, and extension of the Mary MacKenzie Drain.

The Tribunal granted the appeals of R.J. Broiler Farms Ltd. and Peter Bosma in part, finding that the watershed boundaries should be adjusted and certain 'Cut Off' benefits were improperly assessed.

The appeal of Jeannie Godlouski was denied, as she failed to provide evidence that her assessment was excessive or unfair.

The Tribunal ordered revisions to the Schedule of Assessment and the Schedule of Assessment for Future Maintenance.

The appellant, an egg producer, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding its Layer Leasing Pool (LLP) policy.

The LLP distributed market growth production rights equally among quota holders via an annual lease, rather than on a historical pro-rata basis.

The appellant argued the equal distribution was unfair to large producers and promoted inefficiency.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the LLP was developed through a reasonable process considering stakeholder input, new entrant access, and risk management, and the appellant failed to prove the policy was contrary to legislation or outside EFO's authority.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and requested a review of the Engineer's Account pertaining to the Zavitz Municipal Drain and associated branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer's Report contained oversights, including failing to account for the naturalized state of the Clee property and the correct location of the existing drain on the Philip property.

The Tribunal also found the engineering fees for the Zavitz Drain to be unreasonable and excessive, directing that they be reduced to the provincial average of 23% of the total project cost and reallocated between the municipalities based on the travel length of the drain.

The Engineer was ordered to revise the report accordingly.

The Norfolk County Roads Department appealed the Engineer's report for the Decou Road Drain, arguing that the assessments for benefit and outlet liability for Branch B were disproportionately levied against the municipality.

The Engineer had assessed 100% of the remaining capital costs and future maintenance costs for Branch B against Norfolk County, while assessing other affected properties at zero dollars.

The Tribunal found that the construction of Branch B offered significant benefit to other directly affected properties and that the assessment of capital and maintenance costs solely against the municipality was inequitable.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the Engineer to revise the Schedule of Assessment for Branch B to include appropriate assessments for benefit and outlet liability against all affected lands.

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 appellant appealed a specialty chicken policy enacted by the respondent marketing board.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent revoked the policy and enacted a new one.

The appellant sought to continue the appeal, arguing its members suffered irreparable damage from the previous policy.

The respondent and an intervener argued the appeal must be dismissed as the policy no longer existed.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to continue the appeal because the appealed policy was revoked, and the appellant must first apply to the marketing board for a hearing regarding the new policy as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) regarding the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's (CFO) Specialty Chicken Policy No. 199-2013.

AOCP argued the policy had been effectively replaced by subsequent CFO decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature since the policy had not yet been officially withdrawn.

However, the Tribunal granted an adjournment of the substantive hearing to allow CFO time to complete its policy review and align it with the national policy.

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, a candidate in a Dairy Farmers of Ontario board election, appealed the Returning Officer's decision to reject 10 ballots postmarked the day after the regulatory deadline.

The appellant argued the ballots might have been consigned to the post office on the deadline day but postmarked late due to local post office practices.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Returning Officer correctly applied Section 14(4) of Regulation 760 of the Milk Act, which requires the officer to be satisfied the ballots were mailed or consigned by the deadline, and that relying on the postmark provides an objective standard.

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 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 appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The Board denied the application on the basis that the appellant's son, who had a history of regulatory contraventions, was the de facto producer standing behind the application.

The Tribunal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board was entitled to treat the appellant and her son as one unit for the purpose of assessing the application, and that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory plan to ensure her son would not be involved in the tobacco production.

The appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The appellant sought an expedited decision so she could plant tobacco in time for the 2012 crop year.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, issuing its decision without reasons to accommodate the planting schedule, with full written reasons to follow.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) assessing an Excess Production Levy of $21,978.99 for exceeding its quota allotment.

The appellant argued the overproduction resulted from a clerical error by an inexperienced employee who relied on the wrong document to order chicks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the producer's failure to properly train and guide the employee did not constitute exceptional circumstances or force majeure warranting a waiver of the levy.