Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

The Appellants, dairy farmers whose farm was placed in receivership, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying exemptions to quota policies that would allow the farm to be sold as an ongoing operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that the Appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter.

The Tribunal held that the Receiver had sole authority over the farm assets and the decision to appeal, and the Appellants could not establish a sufficient financial or legal interest to pursue the appeal in their personal capacity.

The appellant appealed a municipal drainage report under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits of the proposed works were not commensurate with the estimated costs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed erosion and sediment control works would benefit the drainage area, the works were not currently required and were deferred to an undetermined future date.

Consequently, assessing properties now for the engineering fees of possible future improvements was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the municipality to pay 50% of the engineering fees out of general funds.

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 the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessment for the reconstruction of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that they had already paid for a previous drain improvement in 2014 that met their needs, and that the new drain primarily benefited upstream landowners by providing a deeper outlet.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellants' expert that the benefit assessment should consider the area of lands receiving benefit rather than just the length of the drain on each property.

The Tribunal ordered a 50% reduction in the appellants' benefit assessment, reallocating the costs pro-rata among the other assessed lands.

The appellants appealed a drainage report concerning the Hostine Drain East Branch under the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a full uncontested settlement, contingent on the appellants obtaining approval for a subsequent connection to the main drain.

After the approval was obtained, the Tribunal issued a consent order amending the drainage report in accordance with an addendum, directing the municipal clerk to give effect to the amended report, and allocating engineering costs.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for the improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The report proposed removing a retaining wall on the appellants' property that had recently been reconstructed under an emergency designation by the Minister.

The Tribunal found that the emergency reconstruction was not supervised by an engineer as required by the Minister's condition, and the current engineer's report failed to properly analyze whether the wall could be incorporated into the drainage works.

The Tribunal set aside the engineer's report and ordered a new report to be prepared at the municipality's expense.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision which increased its municipal drain assessment by $38,300 for the supersizing of a road culvert.

The appellant argued that its property is actively farmed, not ready for industrial development, and does not benefit from the supersized culvert designed for downstream industrial properties.

The engineer who prepared the drainage report agreed that the original assessment of $9,007 for the open drain was appropriate and that the appellant should not be assessed for the culvert supersizing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reducing the culvert assessment to zero, noting that if the property is developed in the future, it can be reassessed under section 65(3) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants appealed the compensation and special benefit assessments under the Drainage Act regarding a proposed municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that the compensation for insufficient outlet was inadequate because the engineer calculated the corridor length based on an arbitrary termination point rather than the actual distance to a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal increased the compensation from $5,690 to $9,653.

The Tribunal also found that the $5,510 special benefit assessment against the appellants for additional engineering investigations was unjust, as the onus is on the upper lands to justify an insufficient outlet.

Both appeals were granted.

The moving party, an unrepresented landowner, brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal under section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding the relocation of a municipal drain through his agricultural lands.

The municipality opposed the motion, arguing the appeal should have been brought under section 47 and was therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that a realignment of a proposed drain falls under section 48.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time to appeal, the Tribunal found that the two-and-a-half-week delay was minimal, there was no significant prejudice to the municipality as other appeals were still in early stages, and the proposed appeal had some merit.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision not to proceed with a request for drainage improvements under section 78 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because subsection 78(4) only contemplates appeals after an engineer's report has been prepared.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) brought a motion for party status in an appeal under the Drainage Act concerning drainage works on the appellant's lands.

The appellant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that UTRCA's intervention as a party was premature, consistent with a previous decision involving the same parties, because the engineer's report appealed from was not a report concerning the construction of drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for party status but exercised its discretion to add UTRCA as a Participant with limited rights.

The appellants sought an extension of time under s. 100 of the Drainage Act to pursue a late appeal from an engineer’s report concerning a municipal drain.

The Tribunal held that use of the wrong generic notice form and citation to the wrong statutory provision was not fatal where the written materials clearly disclosed an intended appeal under s. 48(1) and satisfied the Tribunal’s procedural rule for commencing an appeal.

Applying the Tribunal’s four-factor extension test adopted from court practice, the Tribunal found a bona fide intention to appeal within time, no non-speculative prejudice to the municipality, a delay explained by the appellants’ mistaken pursuit of relief before the Court of Revision, and sufficient merit because the proposed grounds were recognized statutory grounds and not frivolous.

The extension was granted retroactive to the original filing date, Linda Horton was added as an appellant, and the municipality’s request to restrict the appeal grounds was refused on this motion.

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 appellants appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works would not ameliorate flooding on their properties, objected to the assessment of costs for bank restoration, and argued that the costs of previous incomplete engineering reports should not be assessed to the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the MacNeils' appeals but adjusted the assessment schedule for the Bank Restoration Improvement Program.

The Tribunal allowed Whisky Run Golf Club's appeals in part, ordering that the engineering fees from previous incomplete reports be borne solely by the Municipality, that a mobile pump be used instead of a permanent pump, and that the cost of pumping be divided as 50% Outlet Liability and 50% Benefit to lands lower than the top of the gates.

The respondent sought costs against the applicant following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to recuse the Tribunal Chair.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the recusal motion was unreasonable and frivolous, as it lacked factual evidence of bias and was an improper collateral attack on previous interlocutory decisions.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award substantial indemnity costs as the conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing the appeals were premature as construction was ongoing.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under the Drainage Act or its Rules of Procedure to dismiss the appeals without a hearing on the basis of prematurity.

However, relying on its power to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal vacated the scheduled hearing dates and stayed the appeals until the drainage works are certified as complete.

The appellant appealed four decisions of AgriCorp regarding his crop insurance for his vineyard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2022 Grape Vine Rider claim, finding that vines dying after the coverage period ended were not eligible.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2023 Grape Coverage, finding the appellant could not challenge the policy terms after accepting them.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2023 Grape Production claim, finding the loss was caused by powdery mildew (an excluded peril) rather than excessive rainfall.

Finally, the Tribunal upheld AgriCorp's cancellation of the 2024 policy because the appellant breached the contract by denying AgriCorp access to his property.

The appellants appealed the final engineer's report for the proposed Frank Szeder Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the project was delayed excessively and the proposed design was flawed and too costly.

The Tribunal found that while the 12-year delay was excessive, the appellants failed to provide evidence that the proposed drainage work was technically flawed or that the costs outweighed the benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the engineer's report, but limited the chargeable engineering costs to $108,130 to account for the excessive delay.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report for the Northland Estates Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the proposed drain moved 3 meters west to protect mature boundary trees on their property.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act authorizes the construction of drainage works and provides compensation for property and tree damage, superseding the Forestry Act's requirement for mutual consent to injure boundary trees.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed location on the adjacent farmland was the least intrusive option that balanced the needs of the residential landowners and the agricultural property.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed their assessments for the maintenance and repair of the Harrop Municipal Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that their lands did not benefit from the drain, and that the Hagersville Wastewater Treatment Plant should bear 100% of the maintenance costs.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's engineer, who used the Todgham Method and LiDAR data to determine the drainage area and outlet liability.

The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate the appellants' claims or to support an alternate assessment methodology.

The appeals were dismissed.