John Langlois

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his claim for his 2006 white kidney bean crop.

Agricorp argued the appellant breached his crop insurance contract by failing to harvest the crop, attributing the loss to inadequate farm practices rather than an insured peril.

The Tribunal found that the appellant used good farm management practices and that excessive rain and wet field conditions made harvesting impractical.

The Tribunal concluded that the excess rain constituted an insurable peril and ordered Agricorp to pay the full value of the claim.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision not to insure and pay an adjustment of claim for 138 acres of soybeans, as only 100 acres were recorded in the Final Acreage Report.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had ample opportunity to review and correct the acreage summary but failed to do so through his own neglect.

However, the Tribunal found that including the yield from the unreported 38 acres in the calculation for the 100 insured acres created a double penalty.

The Tribunal ordered AGRICORP to recalculate the claim based on a yield of 13.83 bushels per acre on the 100 insured acres.

The appellants appealed a municipal council's decision to deny their petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their lands required better drainage and requested the appointment of an engineer to assess the municipal drain's capacity.

The municipality and other assessed landowners opposed the petition, arguing the drain was recently cleaned and functioning properly.

The Tribunal found the petition invalid under Section 4 but, noting the appellants' offer to fund a preliminary report, ordered the municipality to appoint an engineer to prepare a preliminary report at the appellants' sole expense.

The appellant filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The municipality decided not to proceed with the petition, arguing it did not meet the criteria under Section 4 and that the existing drain was in good working condition.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the municipality acted improperly in refusing to act upon the petition, as a reasonable effort was made to describe the area needing drainage improvement.

The appeal was granted, and the municipality was ordered to appoint an engineer to proceed with the drainage works.