Peter Wechselmann

The Tribunal re-determined an appeal regarding a crop insurance claim adjustment after the Superior Court of Justice remitted the matter back.

The issue was whether Agricorp mailed a letter notifying the appellant of an option to change rain stations.

Based on the evidence, including Agricorp's failure to produce the individual who mailed the letter or electronic confirmation, the Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the letter was not mailed.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant be treated in the same manner as other insured persons who were not informed of the new rain stations.

The appellant, Royalmar Farms Ltd., appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of its 2005 canola crop insurance claim.

The appellant sought an additional $11,080.33, arguing that the claim should account for the poor quality of the crop caused by drought, which rendered it largely unmarketable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contract of insurance provided coverage for production shortfalls, not quality shortfalls.

Although other producers may have received payments for both production shortfalls and market sales due to the timing of adjustments, the Tribunal held that claims must be adjusted strictly according to the terms of the contract.

The appellant appealed the adjustment of its 2005 forage crop insurance claim, arguing it never received a letter from the respondent offering the option to switch to a more beneficial rainfall station.

The respondent maintained the letter was sent in a mass mailing and was deemed received under the contract.

The Tribunal found that the respondent, holding superior knowledge and a fiduciary-like position, failed to adequately communicate the options and should have followed up on non-responses.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the claim readjusted using the more beneficial rainfall station.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the appeal, finding the letter was mailed and the onus shifted to the appellant.

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.

In a crop insurance appeal concerning adjustments to 2002 and 2003 soybean crop claims, the appellant sought a last-minute adjournment by email on the eve of the hearing, citing illness.

The respondent asked the tribunal to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, award costs for wasted preparation and attendance expenses.

The tribunal held it would be inequitable to dismiss the appeal because an earlier adjournment requested by the respondent had been granted, but found the appellant's eleventh-hour request caused avoidable expense and delay.

The hearing was adjourned, and the respondent was awarded $1,500.00 in costs as partial compensation and as a deterrent against last-minute adjournment requests.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his claim for his 2004 cucumber crop under the Crop Insurance Act.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and signed a release.

As there were no outstanding issues to resolve, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The appellant brought a motion seeking orders for the discovery of documents, examination for discovery of Agricorp employees, and disclosure of information previously requested under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA).

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to provide copies of its existing policy manuals and to produce two specific employees as witnesses at the hearing.

The Tribunal declined to order examinations for discovery, noting it would lead to delays and costs, and refused to order the disclosure of FOIPPA information, stating it should not assume the role of the Privacy Commissioner.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decisions to deny insurance coverage for certain soybean fields, cancel their 2003 crop insurance contract, and deny claims for losses on their 2003 soybean and corn crops.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP was justified in refusing to insure specific fields due to poor farming practices and in denying the soybean claim because the appellants failed to keep accurate records and mixed insured and uninsured crops.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellants' conduct did not amount to fraud, reinstated the insurance contract, and ordered AGRICORP to pay the undisputed corn claim with interest.

Claims for punitive damages and costs were dismissed.

The appellant filed an appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding a crop insurance claim more than one year after filing the proof of loss form.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal due to the statutory limitation period.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the limitation period is a substantive requirement, not a procedural one, and it has no statutory authority to extend or waive the deadline.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 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 appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP regarding a crop insurance claim for their 2000 corn crop.

The appeal was filed after the one-year limitation period prescribed by regulation.

AGRICORP argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

The Tribunal found that it had the administrative mandate to grant extensions in appropriate circumstances.

Given that the appellants had actively pursued their claim through a review committee, were not warned of the impending deadline, and AGRICORP suffered no prejudice, the Tribunal extended the time for filing the appeal.

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 appellant, Laplante Combining Inc., appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying its claim for unseeded land compensation (Unseeded Acreage Benefit) in the 2000 crop year.

The appellant argued it had coverage for 2,500 acres, while AGRICORP maintained coverage was limited to 750 acres because the appellant failed to report its increased acreage by the May 1 deadline.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not give effective notice of the increased land base before the deadline and that AGRICORP acted within the terms of the Contract of Insurance in denying the claim.

The appeal was denied.

Agricorp brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the insured regarding a 1993 corn crop insurance claim on the basis that the appeal was filed outside the statutory time limit.

The insured argued that they were misled by Agricorp into believing they had no contract of insurance, leading them to pursue a premium refund instead of appealing the denial of benefits.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed well beyond the one-year statutory time limit from the filing of the proof of loss, and that the Tribunal has no authority to extend this time limit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

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.

The appellant appealed a decision by AgriCorp denying a crop insurance claim for soybeans.

AgriCorp brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the appellant harvested and was credited for more soybeans than the guaranteed production under the insurance contract, meaning there was no 'loss' to adjust.

Based on agreed facts, the Board found that the appellant delivered and was credited for more than the guaranteed amount.

Consequently, there was no insured loss, and the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 2 of Regulation 140/96.

The appeal was dismissed.