Donald Good

The requesting parties sought a review of a previous Tribunal decision that quashed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act and assessed costs against them.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to review the decision to hear late-filed appeals, finding no material error of law.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to review the costs award, as the requesting parties had not been given an opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The original panel was ordered to reconvene to receive written submissions on the allocation of costs.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the proposed Eden Grove Municipal Drain.

The petitioners sought drainage of their flooded agricultural lands, while other landowners and the conservation authority raised concerns about downstream impacts, wetland preservation, and the project's feasibility.

The Tribunal found that the engineer lacked sufficient drainage expertise, the report was deficient and lacked adequate survey data, and the proposed works would not provide measurable relief or reclaim land for agriculture due to conservation restrictions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, rejected the engineer's report, and ordered the municipality to terminate the drainage project.

The appellants appealed Agricorp's decision denying a reseeding claim for 700 acres of soybeans planted in April 2005.

Agricorp argued the early planting did not constitute Good Farm Management Practice.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had extensive farming experience, planted during favourable soil conditions, and that Agricorp had unilaterally decided not to cover early-planted soybeans without notifying the insured.

The Tribunal concluded the appellants engaged in Good Farm Management Practice and ordered Agricorp to pay the $42,000 reseeding claim.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to continue a loan of 10 kg of milk quota.

The appellant had suffered severe financial hardship due to alleged environmental contamination on his farm and sought the quota loan to sustain his operation pending the resolution of related litigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the DFO had already provided generous assistance and that it is not the explicit mandate or responsibility of the DFO to alleviate the financial difficulties of individual milk producers.

The appellants, a group of dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding its over-quota milk payment policy.

In a pre-hearing motion, the appellants sought to have the Tribunal adopt the Rules of Civil Procedure to hear the appeal as a class action suit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it derives its jurisdiction solely from its enabling statutes and has no inherent or statutory jurisdiction to entertain class action suits.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) cancelling their milk production licenses and quotas.

The DFO had penalized the appellants for shipping milk outside the DFO system to a U.S. broker in violation of DFO Regulation 08/03 and for ignoring 'cease and desist' orders.

The Tribunal found that the appellants deliberately contravened the regulations and disregarded the orders.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the appellants' licenses but reduced the quota cancellation penalties, ordering the remaining quota to be sold on the exchange or forfeited.

The appellant filed an appeal regarding a crop insurance claim more than a year after filing the proof of loss.

At a pre-hearing conference, the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as out of time and alternatively sought an indefinite adjournment because the appellant was under police investigation for fraud related to the claim.

The Tribunal adjourned the decision on the time limit extension to the full hearing panel and granted a postponement of the hearing pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

The appellant, International Dairy Direct - Broker Agent (IDDBA), appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to endorse IDDBA's proposed milk export plan.

The DFO had re-regulated the Ontario dairy industry to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling against subsidized Canadian milk exports.

IDDBA sought approval for a plan to broker over-quota milk for export to the United States.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed plan was not clearly defined, lacked firm agreements, and would negatively impact Ontario's supply management system by encouraging over-quota production.

International Dairy Direct – Broker Agent (IDDBA) appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to endorse IDDBA's proposed milk export plan.

IDDBA sought to export over-quota milk to the United States in compliance with a World Trade Organization ruling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed plan would negatively impact Ontario's supply management system, was not clearly defined, and that the DFO's refusal was not prejudicial or inconsistent with its policies.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP to deny them crop insurance coverage for five years and to require the repayment of previously settled claims due to alleged misrepresentation of crop yields.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal adopted the minutes of settlement, which rescinded the five-year ban and the repayment requirement, but rendered the appellants ineligible for crop insurance for the 2003 crop year.

The appellant producer appealed a decision not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a sample of milk taken from his farm, which resulted in a penalty and disposal costs.

The milk was found to contain an unprecedented level of penicillin, far exceeding what could result from milking treated cows.

The Tribunal found that the contamination was the result of third-party action and that the problem could not reasonably have originated from the producer's farming operations.

The appeal was granted, the test result was removed from the record, and the producer was relieved of the penalty and disposal costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of AgriCorp concerning a crop insurance claim for corn.

As a preliminary matter, the parties asked the Tribunal to rule on whether AgriCorp had the legal authority to revise a final acreage report after it had been filed and the premium paid.

The Tribunal ruled that under Regulation 222, AgriCorp has a reasonable period of time to review and revise the final acreage report, subject to the insured's right to object.

Following this ruling, the appellants withdrew the balance of their appeal.

Several landowners appealed from the engineer's report on the St. Michaels-Donohue Municipal Drain.

Following an interim order, the township and the engineer found a solution acceptable to the affected landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the township to refer the report back to the engineer for modification incorporating the agreed-upon solution and amended assessment schedule, and outlined the procedure for circulating the modified report and handling any subsequent objections.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario (AgriCorp) denying his 1995 crop insurance claims for soybeans and corn.

AgriCorp alleged the appellant understated his soybean yield and attempted to defraud the fund by claiming recent sales were from carryover beans stored from previous years.

The Tribunal found that AgriCorp failed to meet the higher onus of proving fraud or dishonesty, noting the appellant's explanations were reasonable and not substantially contradicted.

The Tribunal ordered AgriCorp to process the appellant's 1995 claims as submitted.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario denying his claim for 94 acres of unharvested coloured beans.

The appellant argued the failure to harvest was due to the insured peril of excess moisture, while the respondent argued it was due to poor management and delayed notice.

The Tribunal found that the loss was caused by a combination of factors, attributing 50% to the insured perils of spring drought and fall excess moisture, and 50% to uninsured perils including poor management practices.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to allow a loss of 34,269.28 lbs, applying a late harvest reduction.

Several landowners appealed from the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report on a municipal drain.

At the hearing, an appellant proposed an alternative open ditch route that would be cheaper and address specific flooding concerns.

The Tribunal found the proposal warranted further investigation and issued interim directions requiring the engineer and affected owners to meet, outline the alternative work, and attempt to reach a written agreement by a specified date before a final decision is made.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for proposed work on the South Vance Drain.

The engineer's report proposed replacing a culvert, relocating the appellant's access culvert, and replacing an open ditch with a tile drain.

During the hearing, it became apparent that none of the assessed ratepayers, including the appellant, wanted the work on the appellant's land.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer to delete all work except the culvert replacement for another ratepayer, and adjusted the assessment for that culvert.

The appellant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs for creating confusion regarding the requested work.