OAFRAAT 1999

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment of costs for a report on future maintenance of the Zoller Drain and Zoller Drain Extension.

The report's costs were largely driven by the need to convert block assessments to individual lot assessments following the amalgamation of the Village of West Lorne and the Township of Aldborough.

The Tribunal found the engineer's equal per-property assessment method unfair to small non-agricultural lots.

The Tribunal ordered the costs to be reapportioned: a fixed amount to the former Township, a small per-lot fee to the former Village, and the balance to the amalgamated Municipality's roads and streets, reflecting the costs of amalgamation.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's decision denying his crop insurance claim for a shortfall in soybean yield.

AGRICORP argued the loss was due to uninsured perils (weeds) and poor management, and that the appellant failed to report the damage prior to harvest.

The Tribunal found that an insured peril (drought) contributed to the reduced yield and accepted the appellant's evidence that he had reported a potential claim to an AGRICORP employee prior to harvest.

The appeal was granted, and AGRICORP was ordered to pay a reduced production claim of 457 bushels.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's adjustment of his 1998 crop insurance claim for corn.

AGRICORP had reduced the guaranteed production by 43 bushels per acre, attributing the loss to poor weed control rather than drought.

The Tribunal found that the reduced yield was entirely due to drought, an insured peril, as the dry weather caused both the poor crop and a late flush of weeds.

However, because the appellant failed to report the obvious crop damage in a timely manner, preventing AGRICORP from conducting a proper field inspection, the Tribunal imposed a 25% penalty on the calculated claim.

The appellant, an apple grower, appealed AGRICORP's calculation of his crop insurance claim under the 1998 Apple Production Plan.

The appellant's orchard suffered both frost and hail damage, and he argued that the claim settlement was improperly calculated and that the contract was an 'open contract' because the payout methodology for multiple perils was not clearly explained.

The Tribunal found that the contract was not an open contract and that its terms were outlined in the Plan.

The Tribunal concluded that AGRICORP calculated the claim correctly and consistently with the contract, applying the hail rider first and then calculating the frost damage after harvest, including a bumper crop settlement that increased the payout.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's calculation of their claims under the Crop Insurance Plan for Forage for the 1997 and 1998 crop years.

The appellants argued that the area-based yield simulation model did not accurately reflect their individual farm losses due to drought.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP had correctly applied the area-based plan and its computer simulation model in accordance with the coverage purchased, and that the appellants were treated no differently than other insureds.

The appeal was denied.

A pre-hearing conference was held to set out procedures for an appeal by 652024 Ontario Inc. (John Vanderzanden) against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding alleged production and marketing of chicken without quota.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions concerning hearing dates, witnesses, documentary production, and legal representation.

The Township of Middlesex Centre applied to the Tribunal for a modification to By-Law No. 98-074 concerning the Taylor Drainage Works.

Three landowners requested additional work affecting only their properties and agreed to pay the total cost.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to terms including notice to affected parties and a 14-day appeal period.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a new tile drain to supplement the capacity of the existing Donald Carroll Drain.

The proposed work was requested by one landowner to improve drainage on his property.

The appellants argued that the existing drainage was adequate and that the estimated cost of the work exceeded the expected benefits.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the landowners were satisfied with the existing drainage and that there was no evidence of crop loss or significant land damage on the property of the person requesting the improvement.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefits of the proposed work were not commensurate with its estimated cost and granted the appeals, ordering that the work not proceed.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Loach Municipal Drain, arguing that the drain should be relocated and their assessment reduced.

The Tribunal found that the proposed location of the drain was appropriate and dismissed the appeal regarding the location.

However, the Tribunal amended the assessment schedule, determining that a ratio of approximately 75% benefit and 25% outlet was more appropriate than the 50:50 ratio set by the Court of Revision.

The City of Sarnia applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Bird Drain.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the Township had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application, permitting the City to appoint an engineer to vary the assessment.

No costs were ordered.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the South Hutchinson Municipal Drain.

The engineer's report proposed cleaning out and extending the drain, with assessments divided between benefit and outlet.

The appellants argued their benefit assessment was disproportionately high compared to upstream landowners.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the main drain was to provide an outlet for the entire watershed rather than direct benefit to abutting landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer to prepare a new schedule of assessment using a ratio of 40% benefit and 60% outlet for channel maintenance.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act that recommended replacing three access culverts on a municipal drain.

The appellants had begun repairing their own culvert headwall and argued that their culvert only required maintenance, not full replacement, and objected to the associated costs.

The Tribunal found that while replacement was the prudent engineering solution given the age of the pipes, the appellants should not be forced to undertake the work if they accepted the risk.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellants could opt out of the replacement, provided they assume sole financial responsibility for any necessary maintenance on their culvert for the next five years.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report for improvements to the W.J. Douglas Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements on the appellants' lands were unnecessary and that only maintenance of the existing drain was required.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, reduced the appellants' assessments for the improvements to zero, and referred the report back to the engineer to separate the costs of maintenance from the costs of improvements and to recalculate the assessments.

The Town of Lakeshore applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a modification to By-law No. 16-94 concerning the Discoverer Outlet Drain.

The modification involved realigning the drain on the Stoney Point Sportsmen's Club property, reducing construction costs, and increasing allowances for land used.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under Section 51 of the Drainage Act, subject to terms including notice to landowners and a 14-day appeal period.

The Township of Tilbury North applied to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal to modify By-law No. 36-97 concerning the Brissette Drain and Pump.

During construction, several changes were made to the drainage system, including enclosing a portion of the open drain, modifying the forcemain, and relocating a sewer, resulting in a 32% cost increase.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under sections 51 and 58 of the Drainage Act, subject to the Township notifying affected landowners and allowing a 14-day appeal period.