OAFRAAT 2000

In a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Chicken Farmers of Ontario decision on quota allocation, an interested party applied for party status, and the appellant applied for an order for her examination for discovery.

The Tribunal granted party status, noting all parties acknowledged her interest in the matter.

The Tribunal denied the application for examination for discovery, stating such orders should only be issued under extraordinary circumstances, which were not present.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed two penalties assessed by the Director for abnormal freezing point test results, which indicate added water in the milk.

The Tribunal upheld the first penalty from July 22, 1999, finding the test results accurate and the penalty validly assessed.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the second penalty from August 13, 1999, because the appellant had only received notice of the first penalty ten days prior, which was insufficient time to resolve the underlying nutritional and equipment issues before the second sample was taken.

The second penalty was ordered expunged and the funds reimbursed.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and the engineer's report regarding the Bourdeau Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the municipality should bear the costs of drain modifications and repairs, and disputed their individual assessments based on the extent to which their properties contributed to or benefited from the drain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to modify the drainage works but ordered adjustments to the assessment schedule, including a minimum assessment per property and specific reductions for certain landowners, noting that the engineer failed to differentiate run-off rates between residential and undeveloped lands.

Property owners appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision concerning improvements to a municipal drain.

The municipality initiated the report to enclose a fragile section of the open drain and update assessment schedules.

Appellants challenged the necessity of the works and the engineer's apportionment of costs, specifically a $200 special benefit assessment levied on 38 nearby properties.

The Tribunal approved the proposed works, finding them necessary to prevent potential collapse and flooding.

However, the Tribunal found the $200 special levy unjustified, ordering its deletion and reallocating the costs by increasing the assessments on the four properties immediately abutting the works and adding a nominal levy to all parcels in the watershed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the Ripley Drain.

They had initially requested that an open ditch on their property be filled in with lawn tile, but objected to the $20,000 special benefit assessment and the routing of additional surface water across their property.

They requested that the surface water be diverted or the ditch relocated to the road allowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the engineer's report appropriately addressed the drainage problems of upstream owners and that the appellants must bear the cost if they choose to enclose the ditch on their property.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of improvements made to the McLellan Drain.

The appellant raised concerns about work done on his property without permission, damage to a private tile outlet, and erosion on the main branch.

The Tribunal found that the work was substantially completed as described in the engineer's report and was of adequate quality.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal clarifying that a portion of the drain on the appellant's property was part of the municipal drain.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the Outlet North Marsh Drain.

They argued that the proposed extension of the drain and erosion control work downstream of Victoria Road was solely for the benefit of a specific property and was necessitated by back-flow from the Thames River, not the drain itself.

The Tribunal accepted the engineering evidence that the erosion was not caused by the Thames River back-flow and that the extension was necessary for a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the report but allowed the assessment appeal in part, ordering a special benefit assessment of $30,000 against the downstream property most at risk from the erosion.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Cook's Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the engineer's report did not adequately address the drainage needs of all affected properties and that the apportionment of statutory benefit and outlet liability assessments required reconsideration.

The Tribunal ordered the report to be referred back to the engineer for further consideration and revision.

In a subsequent reconsideration decision, the Tribunal amended the deadlines for the municipality to consider the revised report due to upcoming municipal elections.

Costs of $250 were awarded against two appellants who failed to appear or abandon their appeal.

The appellants, downstream landowners, appealed an engineer's report proposing repair and improvement of the Short Drain Branches A and B. They argued the work should be delayed pending a report on the main drain, claiming it lacked sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the appellants failed to provide cogent evidence on any issues and that the main drain provided a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal concluded the appeals were primarily intended to obstruct the municipality's statutory duty to maintain the drains, and ordered the appellants to pay a total of $4,000 in costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's preliminary motion, the Tribunal issued a procedural order to schedule a pre-hearing conference and set deadlines for filing additional appeals regarding the allocation of live chicken to Ontario processors.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission regarding the allocation of live chicken to processors.

CFO brought preliminary motions arguing that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing volume setting, failed to provide adequate notice of the issues, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one panel member.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that volume setting was within the scope of the dispute before the Commission.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that any procedural defects amounting to a denial of natural justice or apprehension of bias could be cured by the Tribunal's de novo hearing of the appeal.

The appellants, Ontario-based dairy farmers who previously shipped milk to the Quebec market, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying their request for compensation for losses incurred when transferring their quota to the Ontario market.

The appellants argued that the DFO's policy requiring them to transfer all their Quebec quota to Ontario, rather than selling it at a higher price in Quebec and buying cheaper Ontario quota, was unfairly administered.

The Tribunal found that the appellants transferred their quota for their own business reasons and that there was no evidence of special circumstances warranting an exemption to the DFO's policy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, five farmers, appealed a decision by the respondent crop insurance agency regarding the adjustment of their 1999 hay crop under the Forage Plan.

The appellants argued that the computer-simulated yield model used by the agency did not accurately reflect the severe drought conditions they experienced, specifically contesting the initial soil moisture data used.

The Tribunal found that the agency had applied the area-based plan and its simulation model consistently and correctly according to the plan's requirements.

As the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to alter the plan or its methodology, the appeal was denied.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding the Fekete Drain.

They raised issues concerning the validity of the petition, the value of trees removed, the benefit assessed, the drain's location, and costs incurred.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the drain had already been constructed and the applicants failed to provide any new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Lewis and Maple Avenue South Drains.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments for the Lewis Drain as modified by the Court of Revision.

For the Maple Avenue South Drain, the Tribunal found the work was required but modified the assessment schedule to reflect that the major factor contributing to the need for the work was the construction of berms by one of the appellants, assessing a special benefit to that owner.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) penalizing him for producing and marketing chicken without quota and failing to report production.

The appellant had an arrangement with a local processor where he exchanged live chickens for processed meat, which he used for personal consumption, family weddings, and charitable donations.

The Tribunal found that the chicken used for personal consumption was exempt from reporting.

However, the chicken used for family weddings and charitable donations constituted unreported marketing.

Recognizing the charitable nature of some donations as a mitigating factor, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and reduced the quota reduction penalty.

Three landowners appealed an engineer's report recommending repair and improvement of the Florent-Chretien Drain, arguing the benefits were not commensurate with costs and raising environmental concerns about water quality and beaver dams.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the agricultural benefits of the drainage works justified the costs and that the appellants' environmental concerns, while valid, were better addressed in other forums.

The Tribunal ordered minor modifications to the engineer's report to include natural sediment basins and clarify buffer strip widths.

The appellant association of milk transporters appealed a decision by the respondent dairy board granting a 2% increase in the labour component of the Transport Rate Formula for 2000, seeking a 3% increase instead.

The appellant argued that milk truck drivers perform specialized duties as bulk tank milk graders and that a 3% increase was necessary to remain competitive with industry-wide wage growth.

The respondent contended that the 2% increase was equitable as it matched the increase given to its own staff.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that current market factors and industry wage settlements supported a 3% increase.

Agricorp brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the insured regarding a 1993 corn crop insurance claim on the basis that the appeal was filed outside the statutory time limit.

The insured argued that they were misled by Agricorp into believing they had no contract of insurance, leading them to pursue a premium refund instead of appealing the denial of benefits.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed well beyond the one-year statutory time limit from the filing of the proof of loss, and that the Tribunal has no authority to extend this time limit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying a request for an exemption from the policy on the minimum amount of quota that may be fixed and allotted to a premises.

The appellant sought to produce its crop quota in two separate existing barns rather than build an extension to its main barn to accommodate a newly allotted basic quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO's minimum quota policy of 15,000 units per registered premises was applied fairly and consistently, and granting an exemption would be unfair to other producers who complied with the policy.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellant an extension of time to complete the required building expansion.