Terry Denison

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a pre-hearing motion to dismiss an appeal by Georgian Bay Milk Company (GBMC) regarding the revocation of milk producer licences and the denial of an extension to a transition period.

The DFO argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the appeal was frivolous, and GBMC was estopped due to a pending judicial review.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the DFO's decision, the appeal was not frivolous given the impact on producers' livelihoods, and the issues before the Divisional Court were substantially different.

The moving party requested a review of a May 14, 2003 Tribunal decision regarding a drainage improvement project.

The request was based on new evidence, including a revised engineering estimate showing that the chosen alternative would be considerably more expensive than originally estimated, a lack of support from watershed owners, and health-related concerns of an affected landowner.

The Tribunal found this new evidence significant and ordered a review of the previous decision so that a panel could hear the evidence.

This tribunal decision arose from a pre-hearing conference in an appeal challenging licence cancellations, quota cancellations, sale requirements for remaining quota, and related production-credit consequences imposed by a dairy marketing body.

The parties identified the principal issues as whether the impugned regulation was stayed by prior appeals and whether the penalties and alleged representations concerning an undertaking were appropriate.

The tribunal recorded agreements respecting witness disclosure, will-say statements, and documentary production, and made a procedural order setting deadlines for disclosure and filing before the hearing.

The merits of the appeal were not decided.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his claim for an Unseeded Acreage Benefit (USAB) for 958 acres of crops.

The appellant argued he was unable to plant due to excessive moisture and claimed eligibility based on his 2000 crop year.

Agricorp denied the claim because the appellant failed to report his inability to plant before the deadline and planted 290 acres of soybeans late, which were ineligible for insurance.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, finding the appellant was eligible for USAB for 695 acres, minus 130 acres planted before the deadline and 290 acres planted after the deadline, resulting in a USAB entitlement for 275 acres.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a pre-hearing motion to limit or define the scope of a stay resulting from an appeal by Georgian Bay Milk Company (GBMC).

GBMC brought a motion to require DFO to produce all relevant documents.

Canada Milk Inc. also requested to be added as a party.

The Tribunal denied Canada Milk Inc.'s request for party status, finding insufficient commonality with GBMC.

The Tribunal dismissed DFO's motion to limit the stay, finding that lifting it would cause irreparable harm to GBMC before the appeal could be heard on its merits.

The Tribunal ordered DFO to produce the requested documents and set a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report regarding a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to re-route a portion of the drain to avoid a conflict with the appellants' septic system.

At the hearing, another landowner requested a modification to shorten a proposed culvert on his property, which would reduce costs.

The Tribunal approved the minutes of settlement and ordered the engineer's report to be amended to reflect the re-routing and the shortened culvert, adjusting the cost and assessment schedules accordingly.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the reconstruction of the Rutherford Drain.

They argued the proposed works were unnecessary, the assessments were unfair, and the engineer acted unprofessionally by entering their property without observing bio-security signage.

The Tribunal found the engineer acted professionally and the works were necessary due to the undersized and aging drain.

However, the Tribunal modified the assessments, reducing the benefit assessment against the McDonald property and increasing it for other benefiting properties.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report on the Eden Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns regarding the design of Drain A, including the outlet structure, the necessity of deepening the existing ditch, and the adequacy of compensation for land taken.

They also questioned the necessity of constructing Drain B as a petition drain rather than a mutual agreement drain, and the adequacy and allocation of compensation for an existing ditch incorporated into Drain B. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the engineer's designs accommodated landowner requests where possible, the allowances provided were reasonable and correctly allocated, and Drain B had to be constructed as a petition drain because not all landowners agreed to a mutual agreement drain.

The appellant and respondent jointly brought a preliminary motion requesting that the appeal of a pricing order set by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board be decided by way of a final offer selection process.

The Tribunal noted that both parties favoured this method of dispute resolution and were familiar with it from previous appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion and ordered that the pricing dispute be settled by final offer arbitration.

The appellants requested a review of a final decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding their crop insurance claims.

The request was filed almost a year after the decision, well beyond the 30-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellants argued they were prejudiced by the respondent introducing two documents at the hearing without prior notice.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no good reason for the delay, no material error of law or fact, and no significant new evidence that would have changed the outcome.

The appellants requested a review of a Tribunal decision that upheld penalties assessed against them for high somatic cell counts in their milk.

They argued the Tribunal made procedural errors and failed to meet its obligations under the French Language Services Act by including a unilingual English member on the panel, despite their request for a fully bilingual panel.

The Tribunal confirmed its original decision, finding no errors in the laboratory test results and concluding that the provision of simultaneous translation during the hearing satisfied the requirements of the French Language Services Act.

The appellants appealed Agricorp's denial of their crop insurance claims for replanting black tobacco crops.

Agricorp denied the claims on the basis that an insured peril was not established, the crops were replanted without prior consent, and in one case, replanted after the deadline.

The Tribunal found that excessive moisture, an insured peril, caused the damage.

The Tribunal also found that the processor's consent was not required, the adjuster's comments could be interpreted as permission to replant, and the planting deadline should be extended for one appellant due to Agricorp's delay.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to pay the claims.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Paradise Road Drain under the Drainage Act, seeking a change in the drain's location and increased compensation.

During the hearing, the appellants and the respondent municipality reached a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised in accordance with the settlement, which relocated the drain, reduced the appellants' assessment to zero, and increased their right-of-way allowance.

Landowners appealed the quality of construction of the Foreman Municipal Drain Improvement under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants raised concerns regarding tree removal, property grading, and the handling of subsurface drains.

The Tribunal found that the drain was generally constructed according to specifications and that tree removal was necessary.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Municipality to perform remedial grading on one property and to connect private subsurface drains to a newly constructed tile drain, awarding compensation to the landowner whose property was used for the new tile drain.

The appellant, a carrot grower, appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying his crop insurance claim for his 2000 carrot crop.

The appellant left 15 acres of carrots in the field because his processor experienced scheduling delays and he lacked long-term storage, resulting in the crop freezing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the loss was not caused by an insured peril and that weather conditions did not prevent the crop from being harvested in a timely fashion.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision and an Engineer's Report regarding the construction of a requisition drain intended to provide an outlet for a new subdivision.

The appellant argued the drain would increase water flow onto his property without providing any benefit, and that the estimated costs were too low.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to an allowance for injuring liability due to the increased rate of water flow.

The Tribunal also determined that the benefit to the appellant's land was over-stated and adjusted the assessment, ordering the subdivision developer to pay the costs assessed to the subdivision lands.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's cost estimate and confirmed the project qualified as a requisition drain under the Drainage Act.

L'appelant a contesté le rapport de l'ingénieur concernant la construction d'un drain municipal destiné à desservir une nouvelle subdivision.

Le Tribunal a conclu que le drain proposé répondait à la définition de travaux exécutés sur demande, mais a modifié le rapport pour accorder à l'appelant une indemnité pour les dommages causés par l'augmentation de la vitesse d'écoulement de l'eau sur sa propriété.

Le Tribunal a également révisé la répartition des coûts, attribuant la majorité des avantages statutaires et des coûts à la subdivision plutôt qu'à l'appelant.