Rod Stork

Eight forage growers appealed Agricorp's adjustment of their 2005 crop insurance claims under the Forage Rainfall Plan.

The appellants argued that their claims should be adjusted upward because a rain station malfunctioned and because Agricorp failed to use a weighted average rainfall measurement system, which had been used in previous programs.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence that the rain station data was unreliable.

The Tribunal also held that the appellants had purchased a new insurance product that explicitly used equal monthly weighting, and Agricorp had not misrepresented the terms of the contract.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of their 2005 forage crop insurance claims.

They argued that the rainfall data collected at the Camden East rain station was inaccurate and that Agricorp should have used a weighted average rainfall measurement system.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence to challenge the reliability of the Camden East data and noting that the 2005 Forage Rainfall Plan did not include a monthly weighting provision.

The Tribunal also found that the alternative Environment Canada data proposed by the appellants was not reliable enough to be used.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp denying their 2005 forage crop insurance claim.

Agricorp had adjusted the claim based on rainfall data from the Percy rain station, which the appellants had selected after receiving a letter from Agricorp and calling its Call Centre.

The appellants argued they were not fully informed of their options and that Agricorp had re-adjusted other customers' claims who were similarly misinformed.

The Tribunal found that the Agricorp Call Centre representative gave incomplete advice by simply telling the appellants to select the station closest to their farm, failing to fully inform them of their options.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to adjust the claim using the Seymour rainfall station, which would result in a payout.

The appellant, Royalmar Farms Ltd., appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of its 2005 canola crop insurance claim.

The appellant sought an additional $11,080.33, arguing that the claim should account for the poor quality of the crop caused by drought, which rendered it largely unmarketable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contract of insurance provided coverage for production shortfalls, not quality shortfalls.

Although other producers may have received payments for both production shortfalls and market sales due to the timing of adjustments, the Tribunal held that claims must be adjusted strictly according to the terms of the contract.

The appellant appealed the adjustment of its 2005 forage crop insurance claim, arguing it never received a letter from the respondent offering the option to switch to a more beneficial rainfall station.

The respondent maintained the letter was sent in a mass mailing and was deemed received under the contract.

The Tribunal found that the respondent, holding superior knowledge and a fiduciary-like position, failed to adequately communicate the options and should have followed up on non-responses.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the claim readjusted using the more beneficial rainfall station.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the appeal, finding the letter was mailed and the onus shifted to the appellant.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of their 2005 forage crop claim.

The appellants argued that Agricorp failed to inform them of all available rain stations when they selected a station for their crop insurance plan, resulting in a lower claim payment during a severe drought.

The Tribunal found that Agricorp had not fully apprised the appellants of all eligible rain stations, unlike other customers who received re-adjustments due to an administrative error.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to readjust the appellants' claim based on the rainfall data from the Elmsley rainfall station.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed a decision of the Deputy Director to amend the license of Mornington Heritage Cheese and Dairy Co-operative Inc. to allow it to process cow's milk in a co-packing arrangement with Toronto International Farms Corporation (TIFCO).

The appellant argued the Deputy Director misinterpreted the regulations and failed to consider the impact on existing processors given the limited milk supply.

The Tribunal found that Mornington Dairy met the technical requirements for processing cow's milk and that objections regarding the method of entry to the processing industry were insufficient to deny the license amendment.

The appeal was denied and the Deputy Director's decision was upheld.

Dairyland Transport Co-operative appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to support its proposal for compensation to milk transporters for displaced milk volume.

Dairyland argued that transporters lose uncompensated volume when producers exit the industry or reduce quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the DFO's mandate is to serve milk producers, not to guarantee business returns for transporters, and that the proposal was not fair and equitable to all transporters.

Nine forage growers appealed Agricorp's denial of their 2005 crop insurance claims for forage crops.

The growers argued that the rainfall data collected at the designated rain station did not accurately reflect the severe drought conditions on their individual farms.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the contracts of insurance were based strictly on the rainfall measured at the designated stations, and there was no substantive evidence that the rainfall was recorded incorrectly.

The Tribunal concluded that Agricorp correctly applied the terms of the insurance contracts.

The appellant, Ledgecroft Farms Inc., appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of its claim for its 2005 forage crop under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Forage.

The appellant argued that the assigned rain station did not accurately reflect the drought conditions on its farm and sought a higher payout of $46,000.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant experienced drought, Agricorp had correctly adjusted the claim according to the parameters of the crop insurance contract and the forage plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting it did not have the authority to override the insurance policy.

The applicants brought a motion requesting the Tribunal order the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to disclose documents relating to the sale of their 2005 tobacco crop.

The applicants argued the documents were necessary to demonstrate the financial impact of a penalty being reconsidered by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the documents were not relevant because the reconsideration hearing was limited to the appropriateness of the penalty assessed for actions in 2001 and 2002, and was not a hearing de novo.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his 2005 grape crop insurance claim.

The appellant argued that Agricorp failed to properly apply production potentials to his young vines and failed to inspect the vineyard prior to underwriting.

Agricorp maintained that the contract was underwritten fairly and in accordance with its policies, using historical yield data and reasonable production potentials.

The Tribunal found that the claim was adjusted fairly and in accordance with the policies and procedures governing the Fruit Crops Insuring Agreement, noting that the appellant was treated no differently than other producers.

The appeal for an additional claim payment of $5,103.56 was denied.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

During the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment to resolve a boundary dispute under the Boundaries Act, arguing that the boundary line used by the engineer was incorrect and affected the allowances provided.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that while it lacked jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes, the resolution of the boundary was relevant to determining the appropriate allowances.

The appellant was ordered to provide proof of initiating a proceeding under the Boundaries Act.

The applicants requested an adjournment of a hearing regarding an appeal of a drainage scheme assessment, citing a scheduling conflict and a need for more preparation time.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicants had already received the necessary materials from the municipality and had sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.

The appellant, a tobacco grower, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption to rent out 100% of his 2005 marketing quota.

The appellant argued that deteriorating eyesight prevented him from growing a crop.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's medical condition was not a sudden or unexpected deterioration that prevented him from arranging for a sharegrower to grow the crop.

The applicant, a landowner assessed on an engineer's report for a municipal drain, requested an extension of time to appeal the report and the decision of the Court of Revision.

The applicant missed the appeal deadlines by 16 days and 6 days, respectively, claiming he misunderstood the process and expected further notice from the municipality.

The Tribunal found the appeals were filed very late and declined to extend the deadline, emphasizing that the statutory process must be respected.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from its regulations to rent out 100% of his 2005 marketing quota.

The appellant argued that his recovery from back surgery constituted an extraordinary circumstance preventing him from growing a crop or finding a sharegrower.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's health condition was foreseeable and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance, and that he had not made adequate efforts to obtain a sharegrower.

The appellant, a vegetable grower, appealed decisions of the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers (OPVG) imposing monetary penalties and license restrictions for marketing cull carrots outside the negotiated pricing agreement.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the processor failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement by not grading the carrots and basing the price on processor recovery.

The Tribunal upheld the monetary penalty and license restrictions relating to carrots, but rescinded the penalties restricting the appellant's licenses for other processing vegetables, finding them unfair and inappropriate.

The applicants requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision regarding the Hambly-Sabourin Drain and Beaulac-Beach Drain.

They alleged the Tribunal failed to properly consider the definition of 'benefit' and misunderstood the assignment of responsibility for future maintenance under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no material error of law or fact in the original decision.

The appellant hog producer appealed a decision of the Ontario Pork Producers’ Marketing Board denying his request for a payment adjustment on two loads of hogs shipped to Quebec instead of the U.S. The appellant argued he lost money because the Quebec processor no longer offered a heavy hog grid.

The Tribunal found that while the OPPMB was not responsible for the specific decision to ship the hogs to Quebec, it was partially responsible for failing to inform the transporter that the heavy grid was no longer available.

The Tribunal ordered the OPPMB to compensate the appellant for future losses resulting from the effect of the Quebec shipments on his rolling average index.