Ron O’Connor

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the proposed Krause-Piquette Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant raised concerns regarding the alignment of certain branch drains, the environmental impact of the main drain excavation, the spreading of spoil, land allowances, and the assessment of a rock outcropping.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals, finding that the appellant provided no contrary engineering evidence for realignment and that environmental and drainage concerns were adequately addressed in the report.

However, the Tribunal granted the section 54 appeal in part, reducing the appellant's assessment for the Piquette Branch because it primarily served as an outlet for another property.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, seeking $40,000 in compensation for lost milk sales and expenses after inspectors issued a compliance order suspending his milk marketing due to unsanitary conditions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked statutory jurisdiction under the Milk Act or the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to award monetary compensation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the inspectors acted reasonably and within their broad regulatory authority when they accessed the farm without consent and downgraded the milk classification based on elevated bacterial levels and observed unsanitary conditions.

The appellants appealed their drainage assessments for the Purbrook Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued they received no benefit from the drain, noting their lands were zoned for environmental protection and could not be farmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants were attempting to re-litigate a 1981 decision of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal and had failed to establish any change in the state or use of their lands since that time.

Requests for costs by both the municipality and the appellants were denied, as neither party's conduct during the proceedings was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The municipality sought costs against the appellant following the dismissal of his appeal regarding a municipal drain.

The municipality argued the appellant's conduct was frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate that the appellant acted in a clearly unreasonable fashion, noting that part of his appeal had actually been granted.

The request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report for a municipal drain under the Drainage Act, raising concerns about ditchbank erosion, pesticide buffer zones, and historical notes on the drainage drawings.

The Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the municipality to seed the ditchbanks to prevent erosion.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to relocate the drain, finding it was not a sensitive freshwater habitat requiring pesticide buffer zones, and retained the historical notes on the drawings with minor wording modifications.