OAFRAAT 1998

The respondent Director of Regulatory Compliance, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, brought a preliminary motion requesting that the Tribunal refuse to hear the appellants' appeal on the basis that it was frivolous.

The appellants had appealed decisions not to cancel freezing point test results and resulting penalties.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions and concluded that a hearing should be convened and that mediation was not within its mandate.

The preliminary request to refuse to hear the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Keenan Municipal Drain, arguing that he received no benefit from the drain, that the allowances for right-of-way and potential damages were inadequate, and that he wished to preserve his property as a wetland.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding assessments and allowances, finding them fair and reasonable, and noted that the appellant's property would benefit from better conducting of surface water.

However, based on an agreement reached between the parties, the Tribunal ordered a modification to the drain's grade profile to decrease the depth of excavation on the appellant's land.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal regarding the 8th Concession East Drain.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal involved allegations of negligence and substandard work related to a 1991 repair, which were also the subject of a motion before the Referee.

To avoid duplicate proceedings and potentially conflicting decisions, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and deferred to the Referee's jurisdiction to determine the necessity of the work, cost allocation, and liability.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the Bellcreft Beach Drainage and Pumping System under the Drainage Act, challenging the proposed assessments and suggesting modifications to the drainage works, including a retention pond.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the engineer's flat-rate assessment approach appropriate given the uniform level of protection provided to the area.

The Tribunal also declined to order modifications, noting the lack of engineering evidence supporting the appellants' proposed alternatives.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director not to cancel a freezing point test result and associated $900 penalty for a milk sample taken in December 1997.

The appellant did not dispute the test results but argued the Director failed to provide earlier warning data that would have allowed him to correct his bulk tank cooling procedures and avoid the penalty.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding no error in the testing procedures and noting the appellant was treated in the same manner as other producers penalized for the same offense.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario not to cancel positive inhibitor test results and the associated penalties and load liability costs.

A milk sample from their farm tested positive for penicillin, resulting in the contamination and disposal of an entire truckload of milk.

The appellants argued the contamination must have occurred off-farm, as they were not treating cows with penicillin.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in sample handling or testing, noting the presence of antibiotics on the farm, and emphasizing the producers' failure to keep permanent treatment records.

The Tribunal held that responsibility for the milk remains with the producer.

Farm Fresh Poultry Co-operative Inc. appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying its request for an increased base allocation of live chicken supply and a guaranteed growth process to reach two million kilograms.

Farm Fresh argued it should be treated as a new entrant under Quota Policy 129-1996.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that Farm Fresh was not a new entrant because it had acquired an existing plant's supply, and that the CFO acted fairly in applying its new supply setting agreement.

The Tribunal concluded that economic viability and plant capacity were not valid criteria for allocation.

Subsequently, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs varied the Tribunal's decision, awarding Farm Fresh an additional allocation of 105,000 kilograms for the domestic market commencing in period A-24, but denied the request for an accelerated growth pattern.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and assessments regarding the Foster Drain 1997 and Addendum No. 1 under the Drainage Act.

They argued that their benefit assessments were too high and that an outlet pipe on Joseph Stephenson's property was unnecessary.

The Tribunal found that the division of benefit and outlet was weighted too heavily in benefit for the appellants, reducing Joseph Stephenson's benefit assessment from $9,600 to $7,600 and Jim and Mary Stephenson's from $3,000 to $2,000.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the outlet pipe, confirming its construction was in accordance with accepted practices.

The appellant, H. A. Staff Limited, appealed a decision of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board denying a proposal to calculate Board fees as a single percentage point of the gross market value for all classes of grapes.

The appellant argued the current fee structure, which includes a flat rate plus a percentage of market value, disproportionately burdened lower-priced grape classes.

The Tribunal found the current method of spreading generic costs via a flat fee plus a percentage of crop value to be reasonable and fair.

The appeal was denied.

The City of Port Colborne applied to rescind a 1987 Tribunal order that required the installation of a low lift pumping station on the Point Abino Drain.

Both the City and the Town of Fort Erie supported abandoning the project, and a survey of affected landowners revealed overwhelming opposition to the installation.

The Tribunal granted the motion and revoked the 1987 order, finding that the passage of time without significant flooding problems indicated the pump was no longer necessary.

The Tribunal ordered that the costs incurred to date be divided between the municipalities and assessed against the landowners in the drainage area.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Lamb Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that its assessment for a new branch of the drain should be reduced because it did not intend to connect its tile drainage system to it, and requested the elimination of another branch.

The Tribunal found that it lacked authority to consider the request to eliminate a branch as it was not raised within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's assessments, finding that the appellant's property benefited from the relocation of the drain and that it was appropriate to assess the lands for tile drainage outlet into the municipal drain.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and allowances set out in an engineer's report for the proposed Singers Corners Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high relative to the benefit received, that the proposed works would cause flooding on downstream properties, and that the allowances for land used and crop damage were inadequate.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the engineer calculated the assessments using accepted principles and that the allowances were reasonable.

The Tribunal made one minor correction to transfer an allowance to the correct property owner.

The appellants appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing it deviated from the Engineer's Report.

The Township applied to amend the by-law to reflect the 'as-built' conditions.

During construction, changes were made to water retention terraces without the appellants' knowledge or the Engineer's prior approval, benefiting a neighbouring landowner while placing the burden of water retention entirely on the appellants.

The Tribunal found the drain functioned satisfactorily and declined to order reconstruction.

However, the Tribunal ordered monetary adjustments to compensate the appellants for the unfair process and the neighbouring landowner's unearned benefits, and approved the addendum to the Engineer's Report.

Appeals were filed under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report for the Lewis Municipal Drain and the Maple Avenue South Municipal Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the proposed assessments, the location of the drain, and the potential impact on a fish farm.

During the hearing, alternative routes and designs were proposed, including a late report from a consultant that had not been disclosed to all parties.

The Tribunal declined to redesign the project or accept the late report without proper notice to affected landowners.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer for reconsideration and awarded costs against the appellant who filed the late report for wasting a hearing day.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to allocate 600,000 kilograms of chicken supply to a new entrant, Niagara Country Fresh Poultry Inc., for Quota Period A-21.

The appellant argued the allocation was unfair and not in the spirit of a new supply agreement taking effect in the subsequent quota period.

The Tribunal found no substantial change in the marketplace to justify an increase from the 500,000 kilograms allocated in the previous period and directed that the supply be fixed at 500,000 kilograms.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for Branches 'B' and 'C' of the Garvey-Smith Drain.

The appellant argued that he received no benefit from the proposed drainage work and that the costs should be borne by the neighbouring landowner.

The Tribunal reviewed the engineer's assessment calculations, which used the equivalent acreage method, and found the division of costs between outlet and benefit to be appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments as modified by the Court of Revision were upheld.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that proposed improvements to the Hoy Drain were unnecessary and should be abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the existing drain, designed in 1962, no longer provided adequate drainage for the neighbouring property, which had experienced ongoing water ponding despite the installation of private tiles.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that upgrading the outlet was a necessary first step to resolve the drainage issues.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in costs because they failed to provide credible evidence to support their assertions and necessitated an unnecessary hearing.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision allowing two high plate loop count (PLC) test results to stand, which resulted in penalties.

The appellant argued the samples were mishandled by the milk grader and did not reflect the farm's milk quality.

The Tribunal found no evidence of improper sampling or testing procedures, noting the appellant's samples were the only ones on the load with high counts.

The Tribunal concluded that issues with the farm's washing system and equipment provided opportunities for bacterial contamination, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying his claim under the Crop Insurance Plan for Hay and Pasture (the Forage Plan) for the 1997 crop year.

The appellant argued that his area experienced severe drought conditions resulting in a 60% to 70% yield shortfall, which was not reflected in AGRICORP's computer-simulated area yield.

The Tribunal found that the Forage Plan is an area-based plan and that AGRICORP had calculated the simulated yield in accordance with the plan's formulas without error or discriminatory treatment.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Tribunal noted significant flaws in the Forage Plan's design.

Several landowners appealed a Court of Revision decision regarding the Easton Drain assessments under the Drainage Act.

The engineer had originally apportioned the costs of the drain repair and improvement equally between benefit to adjacent lands and outlet for upstream landowners.

The Court of Revision had reduced the assessment for one landowner, shifting the cost to upstream owners.

The Tribunal found the engineer's original assessments were fair and equitable given the watershed's topography, revoked the Court of Revision's decision, and restored the engineer's original assessment schedule.