Ron MacDonell

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying a request for an exemption from the policy on the minimum amount of quota that may be fixed and allotted to a premises.

The appellant sought to produce its crop quota in two separate existing barns rather than build an extension to its main barn to accommodate a newly allotted basic quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO's minimum quota policy of 15,000 units per registered premises was applied fairly and consistently, and granting an exemption would be unfair to other producers who complied with the policy.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant an extension of time to complete the required building expansion.

The appellants, operators of a dairy farm, appealed decisions of the Director of Regulatory Compliance of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario not to cancel freezing point test results and resulting penalties from February, March, and April 1998.

The appellants did not dispute the test results but sought relief on humanitarian grounds, arguing the violations were related to the January 1998 ice storm.

The Tribunal found no cause-effect link between the ice storm and the freezing point violations, concluding instead that the issues stemmed from farm management practices that were only corrected after milk pick-up was shut off.

The appeal was denied and the penalties were allowed to stand.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director not to cancel a freezing point test result and associated $900 penalty for a milk sample taken in December 1997.

The appellant did not dispute the test results but argued the Director failed to provide earlier warning data that would have allowed him to correct his bulk tank cooling procedures and avoid the penalty.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding no error in the testing procedures and noting the appellant was treated in the same manner as other producers penalized for the same offense.

Several landowners appealed from the engineer's report on the St. Michaels-Donohue Municipal Drain.

Following an interim order, the township and the engineer found a solution acceptable to the affected landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the township to refer the report back to the engineer for modification incorporating the agreed-upon solution and amended assessment schedule, and outlined the procedure for circulating the modified report and handling any subsequent objections.

The appellant appealed the township council's decision not to appoint an engineer to prepare a report to improve or repair a municipal drain.

The appellant sought to relocate the drain to alleviate flooding on his farmland but refused to pay any costs associated with the engineering study or construction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant provided no technical evidence that his proposed solution was feasible and that he would be required under the Drainage Act to bear a significant portion of the costs, which he refused to pay.

Several landowners appealed from the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report on a municipal drain.

At the hearing, an appellant proposed an alternative open ditch route that would be cheaper and address specific flooding concerns.

The Tribunal found the proposal warranted further investigation and issued interim directions requiring the engineer and affected owners to meet, outline the alternative work, and attempt to reach a written agreement by a specified date before a final decision is made.