Sarah Judd

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing the appeals were premature as construction was ongoing.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under the Drainage Act or its Rules of Procedure to dismiss the appeals without a hearing on the basis of prematurity.

However, relying on its power to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal vacated the scheduled hearing dates and stayed the appeals until the drainage works are certified as complete.

The Administrator brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the inclusion of a property in the Farm Property Class.

The Administrator argued that the property owners' failure to file a timely application or a request for reconsideration barred the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act is remedial and allows the Board to extend the time for an appeal to correct palpable errors, curing procedural defects.

Furthermore, the precondition for a request for reconsideration does not apply when MPAC is the appellant.

The appellants appealed under section 58(5) of the Drainage Act, alleging that the respondent municipality failed to proceed with reasonable dispatch with the construction of the Zettler Municipal Drain after passing the provisional by-law.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's engineer had submitted the report and the municipality had tendered the project prematurely, before obtaining necessary environmental permits from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to apply for the required permits without delay and to amend the engineer's report if required by the conservation authority.

The applicants applied for an order waiving the requirement to register their farm with and make a prescribed payment to a farm organization on the basis of their religious conviction and belief in Buddhism.

The Tribunal applied a three-pronged test and found that the applicants' beliefs were genuinely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of their objection.

The application was granted.

The appellant appealed the benefit assessment for the Cobb's Lake Creek Municipal Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to remove the benefit assessment for the appellant's property and redistribute the costs to other properties in Section 5 of the drain.

The Tribunal approved the settlement agreement under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act and ordered the respondent municipality to amend the Provisional By-Law to incorporate the settlement terms before giving it third reading.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the Frenchman's Creek Drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the proposed drainage works were unnecessary and that flooding was solely caused by a nearby quarry discharging water in excess of its permit.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 54(1) appeal as the appellant provided no evidence challenging the assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the section 48(1) appeal, finding the proposed works were required, the quarry had a legal right to discharge under its permit, and the drain required improvement.

The applicant, a farm owner, applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from paying fees to a farm organization under section 22(1) of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The applicant argued that his belief in the gifts of God constituted a valid objection to the fees.

Applying the three-pronged test from James Morin (Re), the Tribunal found that while the applicant's beliefs were genuinely held, he failed to prove they were religious in essence or the actual cause of his objection to payment.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act regarding the repair and enclosure of a municipal drain on their property.

They argued for alternative repair methods and a reduction in their assessment, claiming upstream landowners should bear more of the costs.

The Tribunal found the proposed repair was the only viable option and that the assessments for benefit and special benefit were fair and in accordance with the Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The respondent, a Quebec-based farm equipment dealer, brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's dispute under the Farm Implements Act for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent argued it had no physical location in Ontario and relied on a choice of law clause in the contract specifying Quebec law.

The Tribunal found a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the respondent advertised, delivered, and serviced equipment in Ontario, and was registered as a dealer under the Ontario Act.

The Tribunal also found the choice of law clause unenforceable as an unfair term because it was not brought to the applicant's attention.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent requested a review of a prior Tribunal decision that set aside an engineer's report (the Spriet Report) for a municipal drain and ordered the Municipality to retain an independent coastal engineer.

The Municipality argued the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, improperly relied on hearsay evidence, and erred in summoning the coastal engineer to testify at the review hearing.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov, the Review Panel affirmed the prior decision.

The Panel held that the Tribunal had the statutory authority under the Drainage Act to procure independent engineering reports and that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the admission of hearsay evidence.

The Review Panel found no breach of procedural fairness in summoning the coastal engineer to allow for cross-examination, and concluded the original panel provided rational reasons for setting aside the Spriet Report.

The applicant, a farmer, applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from registering his farm and making a mandatory payment to a farm organization.

The Tribunal applied a three-pronged test derived from labour relations case law to determine if the objection was based on genuinely held religious beliefs.

While finding the applicant's beliefs were genuinely held, the Tribunal concluded they were primarily philosophical rather than religious, and that the actual cause of the application was to avoid the administrative burden of requesting an annual refund.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a drainage works under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the drain was not constructed as designed.

The respondent municipality subsequently sought costs.

The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct unreasonable and frivolous, noting she presented no engineering evidence and attempted to relitigate decided issues.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $6,638.40, representing 80% of the municipality's costs, with the remainder apportioned to the drain.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Mullen Drain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding silt fencing, debris, ditch bottom elevations, standing water, and other construction details, but provided no engineering evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the drainage engineer that the drain was constructed according to the plans and specifications and was performing as designed.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove the drainage works were not constructed as designed.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain, the respondent Township sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had engaged in unreasonable conduct by reneging on a settlement agreement reached shortly before the hearing, which necessitated the hearing.

Applying its authority under the Drainage Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal awarded the Township costs of $5,822.89, representing the legal and engineering fees incurred after the appellant resiled from the settlement.

The appellant property owner appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging poor quality of construction of a municipal drain.

The appellant claimed the drain was installed at the wrong elevation and failed to properly connect with existing private lateral drains, seeking reimbursement for corrective work.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that a section 64 appeal strictly concerns whether the works were constructed as designed in the engineer's report.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert engineering evidence that the drain was constructed as designed, and noted the appellant failed to provide reliable evidence to the contrary.

The applicant applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for re-accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence submitted by the applicant, including its incorporation, democratic election processes, membership numbers, financial statements, and support for local branches.

Finding that the applicant met all statutory and regulatory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered the applicant re-accredited for a period of three years.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including having a democratic board, representing a wide base of farming businesses, maintaining at least 250 supporter farming businesses, and providing education and advocacy.

The Tribunal granted the application and ordered the renewal of the applicant's accreditation for a three-year period.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the uncontradicted evidence and determined that the OFA satisfied all prescribed criteria under Ontario Regulation 723/93, including membership numbers, democratic processes, financial reporting, and advocacy efforts.

The Tribunal ordered the renewal of the OFA's accreditation for a three-year period commencing December 6, 2018.

The applicants brought a complaint under the Farm Implements Act regarding the alleged failure of the hydraulic system of a tractor purchased from the respondent.

At the commencement of the scheduled five-day hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that the matter had settled.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken producer and elected District Committee Representative (DCR), appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (the Board) suspending its dealings with him after he refused to sign a Code of Business Conduct and Confidentiality Agreement.

The appellant argued the Board lacked the legal authority to impose these requirements or to suspend him.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board has broad by-law making authority under the Farm Products Marketing Act to regulate its governance and affairs.

The Tribunal held that requiring DCRs to sign the agreements is consistent with modern corporate governance best practices and that the Board has the authority to restrict access to confidential information for DCRs who refuse to sign.