Izaak de Rijcke

The Grand River Conservation Authority appealed an engineer's report regarding the West Luther Drain under both section 47 (to the Referee) and section 49 (to the Tribunal) of the Drainage Act.

A pre-hearing conference was scheduled for the section 49 appeal.

The appellant argued the pre-hearing conference was premature because the section 47 appeal could result in the engineer's report being altered or cancelled.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it premature to proceed with the section 49 appeal while the legality of the engineer's report was being challenged before the Referee.

The pre-hearing conference was postponed sine die.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles under the Boundaries Act confirming the location of a boundary between her property and the respondents' property.

The Deputy Director had rejected the boundary lines proposed by both parties' expert surveyors, instead relying on a 1970 survey and the historical location of a snake rail fence.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness and found that the Deputy Director's decision was supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Van Moorsel Farms Ltd., appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to reverse a transfer of 10,008 units of basic quota to a purchaser and refusing to allocate an additional 6,500 units of basic quota to the appellant.

The appellant argued that because it had not been fully paid for the quota at the time the CFO announced a new quota conversion policy, it retained property rights in the quota and was entitled to the new allocation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that quota is a revocable license, not personal property, and that the appellant had initiated the transfer before the policy freeze date, rendering it ineligible for the new allocation.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Chicken Farmers of Ontario decision on quota allocation, an interested party applied for party status, and the appellant applied for an order for her examination for discovery.

The Tribunal granted party status, noting all parties acknowledged her interest in the matter.

The Tribunal denied the application for examination for discovery, stating such orders should only be issued under extraordinary circumstances, which were not present.