Robert McKim

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that revoked his licence to produce tobacco and cancelled his 10,000 pounds of Basic Production Quota and 1999 Marketing Quota.

The appellant had previously pled guilty to Excise Act charges for selling tobacco to an unlicensed buyer.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the Basic Production Quota but allowed the appellant to market his 1999 marketing quota, finding that he had a reasonable expectation to market his 1998 carryover crop.

The appellants, owners of a campground, appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding their assessment for improvements to the Ipperwash Drain.

They argued their benefit assessment was too high and disproportionate to the benefits received.

The Tribunal found the engineer's assessment method appropriate but concluded the specific benefit assessment against the appellants was too high.

The Tribunal ordered the appellants' benefit assessment reduced by $3,000, with that amount redistributed to the outlet assessment of all lands in the watershed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment schedule for future maintenance of a section of the O'Brien Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the drain should be treated as one continuous project and that all users should be assessed equally based on acreage.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act requires partitioning the drain for maintenance purposes so that landowners are not assessed for work done upstream of their outlet.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's methodology, which adjusted the previous 1953 assessment to account for subsequent severances, road construction, and drainage diversions.

The appeal was dismissed, with minor amendments ordered to clarify the report's scope.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act that recommended replacing three access culverts on a municipal drain.

The appellants had begun repairing their own culvert headwall and argued that their culvert only required maintenance, not full replacement, and objected to the associated costs.

The Tribunal found that while replacement was the prudent engineering solution given the age of the pipes, the appellants should not be forced to undertake the work if they accepted the risk.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellants could opt out of the replacement, provided they assume sole financial responsibility for any necessary maintenance on their culvert for the next five years.