Tricia Schouten

The applicant applied for an order waiving the requirement to obtain a farming business registration number and make a payment to an accredited farm organization based on his religious convictions.

He argued that his beliefs in 'Sphere Sovereignty' and 'Impartiality' prevented him from supporting organizations that advocate for supply management and risk management programs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's convictions were genuinely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of his objection.

The application for a religious exemption was granted.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Court of Revision confirming an Engineer's Report regarding the Ronson Municipal Drain.

The appellants conceded that the drainage works were required but argued that the benefit derived was not commensurate with the cost, and that neighbouring properties should have been assessed for a benefit because surface water flowed from those properties onto the appellants' land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the construction and engineering costs were reasonable and commensurate with the benefit.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, who concluded that only the appellants' property would benefit from the drainage works, over the appellants' expert, who had not conducted independent investigations and lacked experience with the Drainage Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding whether a property should be designated in the Farm Property Class for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years.

The property owners had missed deadlines to submit applications due to ownership changes following a death.

The Assessment Review Board had previously extended the time for filing appeals under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Tribunal found that the Board's order extending the time to appeal cured any procedural defects or missed deadlines by the property owners.

As the substantive requirements for the Farm Property Class were met, the Tribunal ordered the property to be designated in the Farm Property Class for the relevant years and awarded costs against the Administrator.

The Appellant appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the Hewitt's Creek Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits were not commensurate with costs, the works should be modified, and his allowance was inadequate.

At the hearing, the Appellant requested an adjournment, which was denied due to ample prior time and failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The Appellant subsequently refused to present any evidence or be sworn in.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence of the Engineer, the Tribunal found the benefits commensurate with costs, declined to modify the works, and found the allowance reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Hostine Drain East Branch.

The Tribunal considered whether one of the appellants had standing to appeal under section 54 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that standing under section 54 requires the appellant to have been a party to the appeal before the court of revision.

Because the appellant was not an owner of land assessed for the drainage works, she could not have been a party before the court of revision.

Consequently, her appeal was dismissed for lack of standing.

The appellant, an Alberta sheep farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Farmers (OSF) regarding the collection of licence fees on lambs sold into Ontario.

The Tribunal found the appellant lacked standing on several issues but had standing to challenge the application of the licencing regime to non-resident producers.

The Tribunal interpreted the General Regulations and found they did not clearly exempt non-resident producers from paying licence fees, exceeding OSF's authority.

The Tribunal ordered OSF to amend its regulations to explicitly state that no licence fee shall be charged to non-resident producers and to issue a directive stopping such deductions.

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Drainage Act for the replacement of the McClure Bridge, arguing their lands drained into a different drain than the one assessed.

The Tribunal found that the natural flow of water from the appellants' properties was towards the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, not the Crawford Drain as relied upon by the engineer's report.

The Tribunal concluded the engineer should have recommended a new watershed investigation upon discovering contradictions between historical reports and actual water flows.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants' assessment was removed and reallocated to the Township.

The Appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the proposed Noah Martin Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing a lack of procedural fairness, requesting the drain be relocated off his property, seeking explicit permission for future underdrainage connections, and claiming insufficient allowances.

The Tribunal found that statutory consultation processes were followed and accepted the engineer's proposed route.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised to explicitly state the drain has capacity for the Appellant's future underdrainage and increased the section 30 allowance for damages by $1,000 to account for additional fence crossings.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) removing them from the New Producer Program (NPP) queue.

The DFO determined the appellants were ineligible because the husband held voting shares in his parents' dairy corporation, making him an existing producer under the Quota Policy.

The appellants argued the shareholding was minimal and they made an honest mistake on the application.

The Tribunal found the husband was a producer under the policy and that the appellants' mistake did not constitute unique or exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to award damages.

The appeal was 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.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claim regarding a turn-key installation of a new milk dairy parlour, the respondent requested $15,000 in costs.

The respondent argued the applicants acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith by pursuing the application despite a signed release and by alleging the respondent caused a mastitis outbreak in their herd.

The Tribunal denied the request for costs, finding that the applicants had a genuine belief that the release was unenforceable and that the respondent's actions caused the mastitis outbreak, and therefore did not act in bad faith.

The applicants, dairy farmers, sought $150,000 in compensation from a farm equipment dealer under the Farm Implements Act, alleging that defective milking and stabling equipment caused mastitis and elevated somatic cell counts in their herd.

The Tribunal found no proven causal link between the equipment and the herd's health decline.

Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld a settlement release signed by the parties, rejecting the applicants' arguments that it was signed under duress or voided by the respondent's subsequent breach of its confidentiality clause.

The application was dismissed.