OAFRAAT 1999

The appellants appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample taken from their farm.

The sample tested positive for Penicillin G, resulting in a penalty of $2,601.12.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative of their milk and pointed to inconsistencies in testing for other drugs.

The Tribunal found that sample integrity was maintained, the official test confirmed the presence of penicillin, and the appellants had a cow being treated with penicillin at the time.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, holding that producers must accept responsibility for the quality of milk produced on their farm.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that revoked his licence to produce tobacco and cancelled his 10,000 pounds of Basic Production Quota and 1999 Marketing Quota.

The appellant had previously pled guilty to Excise Act charges for selling tobacco to an unlicensed buyer.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the Basic Production Quota but allowed the appellant to market his 1999 marketing quota, finding that he had a reasonable expectation to market his 1998 carryover crop.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the 8th Concession East Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the Minutes of Settlement, which amended the assessment schedule and relocated a borrow pit, and ordered the engineer and the municipality to modify the report, tender documents, and by-law accordingly.

The City of Port Colborne applied to the Tribunal requesting a modification to a municipal by-law concerning the relocation of a portion of the Wignell W2 Municipal Drain.

The proposed work, undertaken entirely at the cost of a local quarry, would relocate the drain to fit into the final quarry configuration and rehabilitation plan.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, directing the engineer to amend the report and the city clerk to replace the relevant drawings and notify affected persons.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding the cancellation of his processor's live chicken supply and the resulting cancellation of his production contracts.

The appellant argued he was aggrieved because he would have difficulty finding a new processor for his heavy roaster chickens in future quota periods.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO was within its statutory rights to deny a hearing and had already provided sufficient accommodation by allowing the appellant to adjust his production and marketing for the immediate quota period.

Appellants appealed the engineer's report for the Foreman Municipal Drain Improvement under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the assessment of costs for Green Lane Environmental, finding the original outlet and benefit assessments unfair, and ordered modifications to the working width on their property.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals seeking to divert the drain out of the watershed and to increase the allowance for land used, finding the proposed alignment and agricultural land valuation appropriate.

The Tribunal also directed modifications to relocate a portion of the drain on another property and ordered the municipality to pay the actual increased costs resulting from the presence of a municipal road.

The appellants, tobacco farmers facing criminal charges for illegal tobacco sales, applied to the marketing board for an extension of time to apply for spring rental of their marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of their quota.

The board denied the requests, citing the pending charges and the inability to determine if the appellants were in good standing.

The Tribunal found that the board's decision was unfair, as other producers facing similar charges were allowed to continue producing and marketing tobacco.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and allowed the appellants to rent out the standard 30% of their quota, but denied the request to rent out 100%, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the exemption.

The appellant, a tobacco producer facing unresolved criminal charges for alleged unlawful sale of tobacco, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from the General Regulation 1999-2000.

The appellant sought an extension of the deadline to apply for spring rental of his marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of his quota rather than the standard 30% limit.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted unfairly by treating the appellant differently from other producers facing similar charges who were allowed to continue producing.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the 30% spring rental but denied the request to rent out 100% of the quota, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the latter exemption.

The appellants, organic egg producers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Egg Producers denying their request to sell 450 units of basic production quota.

The quota had been allotted to them in 1989 by a Tribunal decision on a non-transferable, non-saleable basis.

The appellants argued that, like another producer in a previous case, they had demonstrated a long-term commitment to the industry and should be allowed to sell the quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, distinguishing the previous case on the basis that the appellants had not purchased the quota when they began production, and found no sufficient reason to interfere with the Board's decision.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Walker Drain, Branch 'B' in the Township of West Elgin.

The appellants argued that the anticipated benefits of the proposed drainage works were not commensurate with the estimated costs and challenged their respective assessments.

The Tribunal found that the project was necessary to address flooding issues and that the administrative costs, while high, were largely due to the ratepayers' own requests for meetings and revisions.

The Tribunal confirmed the engineer's assessments, finding them appropriate given the natural drainage patterns and the benefits provided by the new drain.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report concerning the relocation and repair of the Harkness Drain, arguing that the allowances for damages and tree removal were insufficient and that the drain should not be moved off the road allowance.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to relocate the drain to accommodate road improvements but found that the Road Authority was not assessed enough for the benefit it received.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be amended to increase the special benefit assessment to the Township, increase the allowances for right-of-way and damages for the appellants, modify the piping requirements, and recalculate the allowances for tree removal.

The appellant farm appealed a decision not to cancel an abnormal freezing point test result on a milk sample, which had resulted in a penalty for added or excess water.

The Tribunal found that no water was intentionally added, the abnormal result was likely caused by ice crystals in the bulk tank, and the producer had exercised due diligence in addressing the refrigeration problem.

The appeal was allowed, the test result was ordered expunged, and the penalty monies were reimbursed.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the proposed Harmony Road Drain in the Township of Delhi.

The appellants argued that the drain would not benefit their lands and that the costs were not commensurate with the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drainage works would provide a necessary outlet for upstream lands and that the overall advantages to the watershed outweighed the costs.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's assessments as fair and reasonable, dismissing all appeals.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an amended engineer's report for a municipal drain, arguing that their existing private drainage facility should have been incorporated into the design and that they should receive an allowance under section 31 of the Drainage Act.

They also contested the cut-off benefit assessed to their properties.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was restricted to assessment matters and declined to treat it as a rehearing to alter the drain's design.

The Tribunal found that section 31 allowances were inapplicable because the private facility was not incorporated into the municipal works, and upheld the engineer's cut-off benefit assessments as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Johnston Drain, seeking a modification to divert the upper portion of the watershed to the north, increased allowances for crop damage, and changes to the assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed northern diversion offered no cost or design advantage over the engineer's proposed route.

The Tribunal also upheld the crop damage allowance of $600 per acre and the assessments as fair and reasonable, though it ordered the engineer to amend the report to include detailed assessment calculations.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the engineer's report and assessments for the Stefanik Drain.

The appellants argued that they were riparian owners on a natural watercourse and therefore should not be assessed for outlet liability.

The Tribunal conducted a site view and concluded that the channel in question was not a natural watercourse with riparian rights, but rather a swale used as an outlet for tile drainage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drain provided a legal outlet for the upper properties, justifying an outlet assessment.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the assessment ratio, determining that the main purpose of the work was to reclaim land on the lower property, and modified the schedule of assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for the proposed Fekete Drain under the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns about the benefit assessment for an open ditch through their woodlot, the lack of compensation for tree damage, and the size and cost of a farm crossing culvert.

The Tribunal found the benefit assessment for the open ditch was too high compared to downstream properties and ordered it reduced.

However, the Tribunal upheld the engineer's approach to allowances for damages, noting commitments to minimize tree damage during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered the report amended to lengthen the culvert and specify equipment access routes.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment schedule for future maintenance of a section of the O'Brien Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the drain should be treated as one continuous project and that all users should be assessed equally based on acreage.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act requires partitioning the drain for maintenance purposes so that landowners are not assessed for work done upstream of their outlet.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's methodology, which adjusted the previous 1953 assessment to account for subsequent severances, road construction, and drainage diversions.

The appeal was dismissed, with minor amendments ordered to clarify the report's scope.

The appellants, owners of a campground, appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding their assessment for improvements to the Ipperwash Drain.

They argued their benefit assessment was too high and disproportionate to the benefits received.

The Tribunal found the engineer's assessment method appropriate but concluded the specific benefit assessment against the appellants was too high.

The Tribunal ordered the appellants' benefit assessment reduced by $3,000, with that amount redistributed to the outlet assessment of all lands in the watershed.

The appellant farmer appealed a crop insurance claim adjustment by the respondent regarding 16 acres of corn damaged by frost and drought.

The respondent argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the dispute involved policy and contract terms.

The tribunal found it had jurisdiction because the dispute concerned the assessment of loss, not contract changes.

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to explain all harvesting options to the appellant and that the appellant should not be penalized for attempting to minimize his losses by harvesting the damaged crop as silage.

The tribunal recalculated the claim payout, awarding the appellant the difference between the guaranteed production and the salvage value.