Sharon Weitzel

Seven chicken producers appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying compensation for losses resulting from a quarantine imposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, which included out-of-pocket expenses and lost profits.

The majority of the Tribunal granted the motion in part, finding it had no statutory authority to award compensatory damages or lost profits arising from the quarantine.

However, the Tribunal found it did have jurisdiction to hear claims regarding over and under marketing levies and penalties.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain on his property under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

He alleged the contractor failed to properly separate logs from brush, failed to level the site, and crushed existing drainage tiles.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that logs were improperly mixed with brush and the site required further grading, but dismissed the claim regarding crushed tiles.

The appeal was granted in part, and the municipality was ordered to complete the grading and sorting of debris.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for a new municipal drain, challenging the lack of alternative routes, the right of way allowances, and the benefit assessments to their property.

The Tribunal found that no feasible alternative routes existed due to topography and upheld the right of way allowances as fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed drain provided no agricultural or developmental benefit to the appellants' lands.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the section 22 benefit assessment and the upstream maintenance assessment to zero, while maintaining the section 23 outlet assessment.

Several landowners appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act concerning the relocation and improvement of the Baillie Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the works were unnecessary, would cause maintenance issues, and that the process was flawed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants had no standing to appeal on the basis of benefits not being commensurate with costs since they were not assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal also found the proposed works, including the relocation of the drain and replacement of culverts, to be reasonable and in compliance with the Act's procedural requirements.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming their assessments for the Brock Avenue Drain under the Drainage Act.

They argued their properties did not benefit from the drain and that their assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methods for calculating the assessments based on lot size and runoff factors were technically sound and compliant with the Act.

The appellants failed to provide evidence that their properties would not receive a benefit from the drain.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessments were confirmed.

The appellants appealed the assessments and the Engineer's Report regarding the Luckins Drain West and Luckins Drain East.

The appellants argued that they derived negligible benefit from the drain and that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the principles applied by the Engineer to determine the Schedule of Assessments were consistent with the Drainage Act and generally accepted practice.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Court of Revision and confirmed the assessments set out in the Engineer's Report.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Marr Municipal Drain 2011 Improvement.

Following an initial hearing where the Tribunal set aside the Engineer's Report, the Municipality requested that the report be referred back to the Engineer for reconsideration under section 57 of the Drainage Act to ensure it included the required overall drainage plan.

The appellant consented to this request.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the Engineer and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding an Engineer's Report for municipal drain improvements.

At the hearing, the Tribunal orally ordered the Report set aside due to non-compliance with the Drainage Act, including the engineer's failure to independently research land ownership and use, and procedural irregularities.

Following the hearing, the municipality submitted new information contradicting evidence presented at the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered a new hearing to review the post-hearing submission and its effect on the oral order.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed the Director's decision to grant Esskay Dairy Ltd. a permit to construct a dairy plant for manufacturing lassi.

The appellant argued the Director failed to properly consider the negative impact on existing plants under section 14(3)(a) of the Milk Act, given the limited industrial milk supply.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed plant was necessary and desirable as it would manufacture a unique product, create local jobs, and potentially increase the overall demand for milk, thereby advancing the legislative purpose of stimulating milk production in Ontario.

The appellant appealed a Director's decision refusing to renew its licence to operate a meat plant.

The Tribunal found that the appellant routinely failed to comply with the Food Safety and Quality Act and regulations, compromising food safety and risk management.

The appellant's operator also obstructed, intimidated, and threatened Ministry meat inspectors.

Concluding that the appellant lacked the necessary understanding, skilled personnel, and financial resources to operate in compliance with the legislation, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal to renew the licence.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report for the Mindemoya Drain and Yonge Street Reconstruction project under the Drainage Act.

One appellant withdrew due to health reasons.

The remaining two appellants challenged the adequacy of allowances for loss of access, the location of maintenance easements, and the handling of excavated soil and trees on their properties.

The Tribunal ordered amendments to the report, including relocating a maintenance easement, increasing allowances for loss of access and tree removal, requiring specific soil handling procedures, and protecting sinkholes as part of the drainage works.

The Tribunal also ordered the removal of certain watershed areas from the assessment schedule.

The appellant moved to postpone a scheduled hearing regarding the Mindemoya Drain and Yonge Street Reconstruction project.

The appellant cited concerns about a neighbouring drainage project, insufficient time to review information, and a recently diagnosed medical condition requiring immediate surgery.

The Tribunal found the medical condition to be a sufficient reason for adjournment and ordered the hearing postponed to September 2010.

The appellant turkey producers appealed a decision of the Turkey Farmers of Ontario denying their request to revise or revoke an over marketing penalty of $13,174.85.

The penalty was imposed because the appellants failed to obtain the required lease and approval to produce turkeys on a specific property, resulting in an over marketing of quota.

The Tribunal found that the appellants were aware of the lease requirement and were responsible for the failure to have it in place.

The appeal was denied and the penalty was upheld.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a new municipal drainage system to divert flood water from the Town of Exeter.

The proposed drain would be located on the appellants' agricultural lands and was designed to an unusually high 100-year storm standard.

The Tribunal found multiple instances of non-compliance with the Drainage Act during the administrative process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the benefits of the proposed works were not commensurate with the estimated costs due to the excessive design standard.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the Planning Act prevailed over the Drainage Act, but ultimately granted the appeal and set aside the engineer's report.

The County of Elgin appealed a decision of the Court of Revision that reallocated a $2,000 benefit assessment for the Richmond Outlet Drain from a private landowner to the County.

At the hearing, all parties, including the assessed landowner, agreed to withdraw the Court of Revision appeal and accept the original Engineer's Report assessments.

The Tribunal granted the appeal and ordered the original schedule of assessments restored.

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 appealed Agricorp's denial of his crop insurance claim for yield losses on his 2006 soybean crop.

Agricorp had denied the claim on the basis of low yield relative to neighbours, failure to report damage during the growing season, and a high proportion of reseeds in the area.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible and concluded that the crop was damaged by excessive rainfall, an insured peril.

The Tribunal also accepted the appellant's estoppel argument, noting that Agricorp had paid claims in previous years following the same reporting process.

The appeal was granted and Agricorp was ordered to pay the claim based on the reported yield.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's decision to deny his claim for yield losses on his 2006 soybean crop.

Agricorp denied the claim on the basis that the appellant failed to report damage during the growing season and that the low yield was inconsistent with other growers in the area.

The Tribunal found that the crop was damaged by excessive rainfall, an insured peril, and that the appellant's reporting process was consistent with previous years where claims were paid.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's estoppel argument and ordered Agricorp to pay the claim based on the reported yield.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments against his property for a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that the benefit assessment was unfair because his property was already adequately drained by a private system, and the proposed works primarily benefited upstream properties that discharged water onto his land.

The Tribunal found that the engineer did not fully consider the efficiency of the appellant's existing private drain and that the road and upstream lands contributed significantly to the water volume.

The Tribunal ordered a reduction in the benefit assessment on the appellant's property and corresponding increases to the outlet assessments of the road and upstream properties.

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.