Ron Gelderland

The appellant, a family farming corporation, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued for an exemption based on financial hardship and the primary operator's medical condition (foot arthritis) which prevented him from milking cows.

The Tribunal found that the operator's medical condition was not sufficiently special or extraordinary to warrant an exemption, noting he continued to actively farm in cash cropping and the DFO's established policy against medical exemptions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued the sale was forced due to the primary operator's back condition.

The Tribunal found that the operator's condition did not constitute a unique or extraordinary circumstance warranting special consideration, especially since he continued to work as a crop farmer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, suffered a catastrophic injury in a farming accident and was forced to sell his entire milk quota.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) applied a 15% transfer assessment to the sale and denied his request for an exemption under the extraordinary circumstances policy.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the DFO's exemption policy lacked clear criteria and criticized its inconsistent and confidential handling of exemption requests.

Recognizing the appellant's extraordinary circumstances but also the significant appreciation in his quota value over 28 years, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and ordered the DFO to refund half of the withheld assessment amount.

The appellant filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The Township of Ramara decided not to proceed with the petition, basing its decision on comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority regarding an engineering report rather than the petition itself.

The Tribunal found that the Township considered extraneous and irrelevant factors not permitted under section 4 of the Act.

The Tribunal overturned the Township's decision and directed the drainage petition to proceed, noting that the appellant was denied due process.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding improvements to a municipal drain.

One set of appellants argued the works would lower the groundwater and dry up their well, while another appellant objected to the location of the works, the removal of trees and a fence, and the cost assessment.

The Tribunal accepted expert hydrogeological evidence that the drain works were downstream of the well's recharge area and would not affect the water supply.

The Tribunal also upheld the proposed location of the drain works but found the cost assessment against one appellant for ditching was excessive and ordered it reduced.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.

The appellant, acting as an agent for homeowners in a residential subdivision, appealed an engineer's report concerning the proposed Hauser Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the appellant acted as a valid agent for the homeowners.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the engineer's report failed to adequately address a specific drainage issue between two lots, did not clearly define the watershed area, and improperly assessed costs against the appellant rather than the registered landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the report returned to the engineer for revisions to correct these deficiencies.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report regarding the replacement of a bridge on a municipal drain, arguing that his 50% assessment of the $15,000 cost was excessive and should be reduced to $500.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that a 50/50 split between the landowner and upstream lands/roads is a standard and equitable method for assessing bridge replacement costs.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment in the engineer's report was adopted.

Two landowners appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Bibeau-Pilon Drain.

One appellant sought compensation for tractor damage caused by a failed culvert and requested the cancellation of a proposed branch drain (Branch C).

The other appellant sought a reduction in his drainage assessment.

The Tribunal denied the claim for tractor damage because the appellant failed to provide the required statutory notice to the municipality.

The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of Branch C and the corresponding revision of assessments, as neither the requesting landowner nor the assessed landowner wanted it.

The appeal to reduce the second appellant's assessment was dismissed, as the Tribunal found the engineer's assessment to be fair and just.

The Township of Tehkummah appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of the Hierons Drain.

During construction, the engineer and contractor made unauthorized changes to the approved design, which resulted in flooding on an upstream property after an unusual rainstorm.

The Tribunal found that neither the engineer nor the contractor had the authority to alter the approved design without the Township's consent.

The Tribunal ordered remedial work to correct the unauthorized changes and directed the Township to bear the costs, as the engineer and contractor were acting as its servants.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, objecting to the proposed construction of a dam on his property.

The appellant argued the dam would cause flooding on the westerly portion of his land.

The respondent's expert drainage engineer testified that the dam was necessary to provide positive watershed separation and prevent water from jumping watersheds, which is required for proper assessment of drainage costs.

The Tribunal accepted the expert's evidence, finding the appellant presented no compelling evidence to refute it, and dismissed the appeal, ordering the engineer's report to be implemented as written.

Several residential property owners appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a swale and buffer strip to address flooding caused by agricultural runoff.

The appellants argued that the swale was unnecessary for their properties and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that the flooding was primarily caused by berms constructed by the residential landowners, which prevented water from flowing to the intended sideyard swales.

The Tribunal concluded that the engineer's report provided a good solution, dismissed the appeals, and confirmed the assessments.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and design of the Cedar Bank Municipal Drain 2006.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the design of the drainage project, finding the engineer's recommended alternative to be the most cost-effective solution for stabilizing the gully and road.

The Tribunal also dismissed appeals seeking reductions in benefit assessments for properties relying on the roads for access, as well as a vacant lot.

However, the Tribunal granted appeals to reduce the outlet assessments on two agricultural properties and increased the benefit assessment on one property whose existing culvert would be maintained by the project.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Daniel McArthur Drain - East.

They argued that their property was assessed the largest portion of the cost despite not being eligible for agricultural grants, and objected to the proposed routing and the allowance for woodlot damage.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the assessments for outlet and benefit to be fair and just, the proposed route to be the most economical, and the allowance for woodlot damage to be adequate given the lack of contrary evidence.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for a proposed municipal drain, arguing the design lacked a sufficient safety margin for flooding and would damage mature trees on their property line.

The Tribunal found the drain design was technically sound and adequate for a 100-year storm event.

While acknowledging the potential trauma to the trees, the Tribunal concluded the overall area would benefit from the drainage works and urged the municipality to address tree preservation and compensation in the subdivision agreement.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to minor modifications to the engineer's report regarding road elevations and maintenance.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Branch 'A' Dennis Robertson Drain.

The appellant requested the relocation of an existing tile drain off his property and disputed the assessment of costs for this relocation.

The Tribunal found that the assessments made by the engineer were fair and reasonable, as the appellant was the sole beneficiary of the relocation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Revision to exempt the appellant's property from maintenance costs was confirmed.

The appellants filed a petition for drainage with the City of Welland under the Drainage Act due to flooding on their property.

The City failed to respond within the prescribed 30 days, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The City brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a registered subdivision agreement under the Planning Act governed the property's drainage and that Section 71 of the Planning Act prevailed in the event of a conflict.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no conflict between the specific provisions of the two Acts.

The Tribunal ordered the City to accept the petition and appoint an engineer to examine the area and prepare a report.

Appeals were brought under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report and Court of Revision assessments for the Saxon Drain.

The appellants sought modifications to the drain's design and cost-sharing assessments.

The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing assessments but ordered modifications to the drain's design, including the incorporation of a private junction box and a berm, and the installation of a new cross-connected catchbasin to better utilize the older part of the drain.

The engineer was directed to recalculate allowances for the incorporated works.

The Tribunal reviewed its previous decision regarding the assessment of the Municipality's costs against the appellants in a dispute over the Eden Grove Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that they did not appeal the engineer's report on the advice of the Municipality, and that the Municipality chose the engineer.

The Tribunal found this rationale sound and reduced the costs assessed against the appellants, ordering the balance to be paid from the Municipality's general funds.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Krueger Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the proposed route, design, allowances, and assessments.

The appellant argued for an alternative east-west drainage route and disputed the compensation for land and trees.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the engineer's report to be logical, well-reasoned, and fair.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's proposed north-south route and found no professional evidence to support the appellant's preferred alternative.

The appellant appealed under Section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of the Ross Drain 2004.

The parties reached an agreement through Amended Minutes of Settlement to address deficiencies in the construction, including issues with lateral tiles, topsoil, and upstream berms.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfactory and ordered the parties to complete the undertakings, adding $1,423.13 to the final cost of the project.