OAFRAAT 1997

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.

The appellants, Boneta Foods and Robert Meersseman, appealed decisions denying them a processor licence and a producer licence for the 1997 crop year.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of the processor licence to Boneta Foods, finding a history of non-compliance with payment terms and poor financial management.

However, the Tribunal granted Mr. Meersseman a producer licence on the condition that he obtain a contract with a licensed processor, noting that late applications had been accommodated in the past.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Spring-Water Evergreen Beach Drainage System under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works were too costly, the route should be modified, and the assessments were inappropriate.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the traditional flow route recommended in the engineer's report was the proper choice to provide a sufficient outlet for County Road 50.

The Tribunal confirmed the allowances and assessments with minor technical changes regarding the water main and beach roads.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision allowing a positive inhibitor test result for sulphamethazine (SMZ) in their milk to stand.

They argued the sample may have been contaminated after leaving their farm or improperly handled by the bulk tank milk grader.

The Tribunal found no evidence of tampering or improper handling, noting that the sample vial's security was intact and no other samples on the route tested positive.

As there was no evidence that the SMZ entered the milk from a source other than the farm, the Tribunal denied the appeal and upheld the test result.

The appellant, a licensed chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario imposing a penalty of a 10,000-kilogram quota reduction for failing to report 2,000 kilograms of chicken production.

The appellant admitted to the unreported marketing but argued the penalty was too severe given his difficulties with the processor.

The Tribunal found that while illegal production is a serious breach, the penalty was severe and likely an act of omission caused by frustration rather than a deliberate attempt to circumvent regulations.

The Tribunal denied the appeal but adjusted the penalty to a 6,000-kilogram quota reduction, representing three times the unreported amount, consistent with first-offence penalties.

The Turkey Committee of the Ontario Poultry Processors' Association appealed the pricing orders set by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board.

During the hearing, the Board introduced new evidence regarding export credits.

The appellant requested an adjournment to respond to this new information.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, ending the hearing and directing the parties to conduct a new pricing meeting to consider the matter again, while keeping the previous pricing order in effect.

The appellant challenged a marketing board decision refusing to permit the sale of quota that had been allotted in 1983 on a non-transferable basis after he had been found operating outside the quota system.

The tribunal held that the board had acted reasonably and compassionately in 1983 by allowing continued production subject to the restriction that the quota return to the board when egg production ceased.

The tribunal emphasized fairness and equity among producers, noting that the appellant accepted and used the restricted quota for 14 years without objection.

The appeal was denied, but the board was directed to facilitate the transfer of up to 1,304 quota units to a purchaser if the land, buildings and quota were sold intact as a production unit within one year.

Several ratepayers appealed the engineer's report on the Bearss Drain and Wm.

Michael Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the assessment of costs, the proposed berms, and the allowances.

The Tribunal found that the proposed flood control project was appropriate to address water flowing up the drains from Lake Erie.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the modification of the works and the allowances, but ordered adjustments to the assessments to ensure that abutting lots capable of supporting only one residence were assessed as single buildable parcels.

The appellants appealed the assessments for a municipal drain improvement under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued that they received no benefit from the proposed work and that the increased water runoff was caused by highway reconstruction.

The respondent's engineer testified that the assessments were based on current design standards and that the highway authority was appropriately assessed for the increased runoff from the road widening.

The Tribunal found the engineer's proposal reasonable and the assessments appropriate, dismissing the appeals.

The Corporation of the Township of Dawn applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Leason Drain.

The Township of Camden had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application, permitting the appointment of an engineer to vary the assessment.

The appellant processor association appealed a decision by the respondent marketing board to allocate an additional one million kilograms of chicken to a specific processor for a quota period, bypassing the standard special request panel process.

The appellant argued this extra allocation would negatively impact the market and set a dangerous precedent.

The Tribunal found that while the board had the authority to grant the exemption and the processor demonstrated a legitimate need for additional product, the full one million kilogram allocation raised concerns about market effects.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the additional allotment to 600,000 kilograms.

The appellant processors' committee appealed a pricing order by the respondent marketing board that raised or maintained the live price of turkeys.

The appellant argued that high storage stocks, reduced processor margins, and changes in retail purchasing practices necessitated a price reduction.

The respondent argued that the price increase was justified by higher feed costs and positive market indicators.

The Tribunal found that while market indicators were beginning to show positive signs, they were not sufficient to support a price increase given the processors' reduced margins.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, ordering a 2.0 cent reduction in the price of all categories of turkey for a specified period.

The appellants, four independent dairies in Northern Ontario, appealed a decision by the Farm Products Marketing Commission to modify its Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy.

The policy changes merged distribution areas and allowed fluid milk products processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to consult adequately on the substance of the changes and requested the Tribunal direct the Commission to reopen the issue and conduct hearings in Northern Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Commission had conducted adequate consultation with the industry starting in 1993 and that the industry should not have been surprised by the policy change.

The appellants appealed the design and assessments in an engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

They argued that the drain's outlet into the river was insufficient, causing erosion and flooding on their property, and requested that the drain be relocated or that they receive an allowance for the insufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the flooding and erosion were caused by the river backing up, not by the water flowing from the drain.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to justify the delay and expense of investigating alternative routes or adjusting the assessments.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission to amend the Northern Ontario Fluid Milk Distribution Policy, which eliminated distribution areas in Northern Ontario and allowed fluid milk processed in Southern Ontario to be distributed in the North.

The appellants requested a delay in implementation and public hearings, and one appellant requested an exemption to source milk from Southern Ontario earlier than scheduled.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the Commission had adequately consulted the industry, had considered the anticipated impact, and had provided adequate notification of the phased implementation.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to address the exemption request as it had not been considered by the Commission.

The Ontario Dairy Council appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding the methodology used to determine the price of Class 4(a) milk under the P6 Agreement.

The appellant argued that the new pricing system failed to achieve revenue neutrality, resulting in increased costs for butter and powder manufacturers.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had followed the agreed-upon P6 methodology, even though it resulted in a cost increase.

The Tribunal declined to make a decision on the dispute, concluding that the proper forum for resolving the issue was the governing body of the P6 Agreement, as Ontario could not act unilaterally.

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, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for relief from a 15% transfer assessment on quota sales.

The appellant had been forced to sell his quota to satisfy bank loans called due to his marital breakdown.

The Tribunal found that while the circumstances warranted compassion, the request to return the transfer assessment and grant an additional quota allocation should be denied.

However, the Tribunal directed the DFO to purchase the appellant's over quota milk produced during the 1996/97 dairy year at full price, up to a maximum of 11,500 kg, as a form of assistance.

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.