Stan Benda

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the St. John's Marsh Drain.

The appellant argued that the proposed abandonment of a section of the drain within conservation lands and the installation of a weir would exacerbate flooding on his agricultural lands.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's recommendation to abandon the unfindable section of the drain within the conservation lands but ordered the removal of the proposed Newbury Weir from the report to prevent further aggravation of the appellant's drainage issues.

A farmer appealed the assessment of costs for an environmental impact study required by the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (CA) for a proposed municipal drain.

The CA argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over it.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the CA because the CA acted under its own parallel regulatory regime, despite ignoring the Drainage Act processes.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Municipality to bear the full $49,944 cost of the study because it failed to properly manage the Drainage Act process and protect the farmer from unexpected costs.

The appellant filed an appeal concerning the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's 300-bird exemption policy.

The Tribunal had previously directed the appellant to restrict his appeal to this specific issue, but the appellant filed a 98-page revised notice of appeal seeking extensive relief beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including damages and declarations of bad faith.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and not made in good faith, as the appellant was using the process to advance a personal political manifesto rather than a genuine dispute.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal pursuant to s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission brought a motion arguing the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over an appeal by the Ontario Dairy Council.

The Commission contended its decision to allow a convenience store to test market a three-litre milk jug was of general application.

The Tribunal found the decision was of specific application because it involved an ad hoc approach and idiosyncratic conditions under section 18 of Regulation 753, rather than a general prescription under section 8.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the motion and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

OtonaBEE Apiary appealed a Director's decision confirming a compliance order that required them to pack honey in containers complying with Ontario Regulation 119/11.

The apiary used 500 ml and 1 L jars, which held 650 g and 1,330 g of honey respectively, arguing the extra honey was a free bonus or that the regulation's metric weights should be interpreted as liquid volumes.

The Tribunal rejected both arguments, finding the regulation strictly requires containers of specific net weights (e.g., 500 g, 1 kg).

The appeal was dismissed and the compliance order confirmed, with a 45-day period to remove non-compliant containers.