Robert Fuller

The Appellants, dairy farmers whose farm was placed in receivership, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying exemptions to quota policies that would allow the farm to be sold as an ongoing operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that the Appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter.

The Tribunal held that the Receiver had sole authority over the farm assets and the decision to appeal, and the Appellants could not establish a sufficient financial or legal interest to pursue the appeal in their personal capacity.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessment for the reconstruction of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that they had already paid for a previous drain improvement in 2014 that met their needs, and that the new drain primarily benefited upstream landowners by providing a deeper outlet.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellants' expert that the benefit assessment should consider the area of lands receiving benefit rather than just the length of the drain on each property.

The Tribunal ordered a 50% reduction in the appellants' benefit assessment, reallocating the costs pro-rata among the other assessed lands.

The respondents sought costs following the dismissal of the applicants' normal farm practices application.

The Board found that the applicants' conduct throughout the proceedings, including repeatedly raising decided issues, making unfounded allegations of bias, and filing excessive and irrelevant documentation, was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Board ordered the applicants to pay $3,933.25 in costs for a Rule 8 motion and directed further submissions to determine the quantum of costs for the merits hearing.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for the improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The report proposed removing a retaining wall on the appellants' property that had recently been reconstructed under an emergency designation by the Minister.

The Tribunal found that the emergency reconstruction was not supervised by an engineer as required by the Minister's condition, and the current engineer's report failed to properly analyze whether the wall could be incorporated into the drainage works.

The Tribunal set aside the engineer's report and ordered a new report to be prepared at the municipality's expense.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision not to proceed with a request for drainage improvements under section 78 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because subsection 78(4) only contemplates appeals after an engineer's report has been prepared.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding whether a property should be designated in the Farm Property Class for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years.

The property owners had missed deadlines to submit applications due to ownership changes following a death.

The Assessment Review Board had previously extended the time for filing appeals under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Tribunal found that the Board's order extending the time to appeal cured any procedural defects or missed deadlines by the property owners.

As the substantive requirements for the Farm Property Class were met, the Tribunal ordered the property to be designated in the Farm Property Class for the relevant years and awarded costs against the Administrator.

The applicants, who operate a sheep and fowl farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board after their Livestock Guardian Dog (LGD) was designated a 'Dangerous Dog' under a municipal by-law following an incident where the dog bit a child who entered the barn at night.

The designation required the dog to be confined, leashed, and muzzled, preventing it from protecting the flock from predators.

The Board found that the applicants' use of the LGD, despite the dangerous dog designation, constituted a normal farm practice under the specific circumstances.

The Board ruled that the by-law's confinement, leashing, and muzzling requirements restricted this normal farm practice and therefore do not apply to the applicants while the dog is actively engaged as an LGD on their property.

The Administrator brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the inclusion of a property in the Farm Property Class.

The Administrator argued that the property owners' failure to file a timely application or a request for reconsideration barred the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act is remedial and allows the Board to extend the time for an appeal to correct palpable errors, curing procedural defects.

Furthermore, the precondition for a request for reconsideration does not apply when MPAC is the appellant.

The applicant neighbour brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging a noise disturbance from the respondent's apple storage facility.

The respondent had rebuilt its facility and relocated its controlled atmosphere equipment, including condenser fans and a nitrogen generator, closer to the applicant's property.

The Board applied the common law nuisance test to determine if the applicant was directly affected by the disturbance.

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of his property, noting the agricultural character of the neighbourhood and the respondent's efforts to buffer the noise.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant municipality applied under s. 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment for a municipal drain.

The tribunal found that conditions had changed, including new storm drainage infrastructure bringing unassessed lands into the watershed, extensive cleanout activities, and land use changes.

The respondent municipality consented to the application, and no assessed persons objected.

The tribunal granted permission to procure the report.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for their properties under the Drainage Act regarding the Biederman Municipal Drain improvement project.

They argued that the drainage works should be funded by existing property taxes rather than specific assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that the allowances were inadequate or that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the assessments were fair and reasonable, and adopted the Engineer's Report in full.

The appellant appealed the election of a delegate to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, arguing she was not an eligible 'producer' under Ontario Regulation 403/10.

The delegate had sold her primary hog operation but continued to raise a small number of hogs for farmgate sales.

The Tribunal found that the delegate met the regulatory definition of a producer at the time of the election, as she owned and produced hogs on a property in the relevant zone.

The appeal was denied.

The applicant applied for a religious exemption from registration and payment under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal attempted to schedule a pre-hearing conference, but the applicant failed to respond to communications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Possible Dismissal under Rule 33.01, seeking written submissions.

The applicant did not provide submissions or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion without a hearing.

The applicant, a farm owner, applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from paying fees to a farm organization under section 22(1) of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The applicant argued that his belief in the gifts of God constituted a valid objection to the fees.

Applying the three-pronged test from James Morin (Re), the Tribunal found that while the applicant's beliefs were genuinely held, he failed to prove they were religious in essence or the actual cause of his objection to payment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from farm registration and payment under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The applicant stated he did not have religious convictions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on its own motion without a hearing, finding that a lack of religious convictions is not a religious conviction or belief, and therefore no remedy was available under the Act.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the McGee Drain under the Drainage Act.

One appellant reached an agreement with the municipality to revise the report and withdrew his appeal.

The remaining appellants argued their assessment should be reduced because the drainage issues were caused by another landowner.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the assessments in the revised Engineer's Report to be fair and reasonable, and adopted the revised report.

The applicant brought an application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that a municipal zoning by-law restricted his agricultural operation by preventing access to his landlocked property and prohibiting agricultural use on lots under one acre.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board held a preliminary hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

While the Board found the applicant met the threshold definition of operating an agricultural operation, it concluded that the by-law provisions in question related to land use planning rather than the restriction of a specific normal farm practice.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from land use planning provisions or to make declarations regarding public roadways.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their Outlet Liability assessment under the Drainage Act for the Komoka Drainage Works.

They argued the drainage works should be funded entirely by the municipality's Stormwater Management levy or that their assessment should be reduced due to an inappropriate equivalent factor applied to their agricultural land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' properties were not in the Settlement area and did not pay into the Stormwater levy.

The Tribunal also found the engineer's use of a 1.0 factor for agricultural lands was fair and reasonable, and that the assessment was calculated correctly using the modified Todgham method.

The appellants appealed their municipal drain assessments under section 54 of the Drainage Act, seeking reductions in their outlet liability and benefit assessments.

They argued that a lower runoff factor should have been applied to their property, which is a provincially significant wetland, and that they received no benefit from the drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the outlet liability appeals because the appellants failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the $1,000 benefit assessment, reducing it to zero, as the property would not increase in value or be more easily maintained as a result of the works.

The appellants appealed their assessments for the construction and future maintenance costs of the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain Phase 1 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments should be reduced or eliminated due to lack of benefit and alleged negligence by the municipality in managing drainage infrastructure.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the properties did benefit from the drainage works and that the assessments were fairly and reasonably calculated using the Todgham method.