OAFRAAT 2000

Following the termination of its dealership agreement, the applicant dealer sought to return new parts to the respondent distributor under the Farm Implements Act.

The distributor rejected certain parts, arguing they were not clearly identified, were repackaged by the dealer, or were obsolete and not in the current parts record-keeping system.

The Tribunal interpreted sections 27(e) and 27(f) of the Act, establishing a four-part test for parts return.

The Tribunal held that parts in original packaging, custom parts with proof of purchase, and individually numbered parts from multi-packs are returnable.

The Tribunal directed the distributor to reconsider the rejected parts against these tests and to accept those that comply.

The Township of Zorra applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal to modify a bylaw regarding the Cartmale Drain.

During construction, a Bell Canada fibre optic cable was discovered, requiring the drain to be relocated.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments to the bylaw, including assessing the increased costs of the relocation to Bell Canada.

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

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant requested that the hearing be bifurcated to deal with three preliminary jurisdictional issues—lack of notice, exceeding jurisdiction, and bias—before proceeding to the substantive merits.

Despite concerns from some participants about delay and duplication, the Tribunal ordered that the jurisdictional issues be heard first as questions of law, reserving the right to join them with the substantive hearing if material evidence becomes controversial.

The appellant producer appealed a decision not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a sample of milk taken from his farm, which resulted in a penalty and disposal costs.

The milk was found to contain an unprecedented level of penicillin, far exceeding what could result from milking treated cows.

The Tribunal found that the contamination was the result of third-party action and that the problem could not reasonably have originated from the producer's farming operations.

The appeal was granted, the test result was removed from the record, and the producer was relieved of the penalty and disposal costs.

The applicant consulting engineers requested a modification to a municipal by-law concerning the Malott Diversion Drain to reduce a land allowance and incorporate aquatic habitat enhancements required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The affected landowner consented to the reduction and the municipality supported the changes.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, finding that adequate notice had been given and no affected parties objected.

The appellant, a processing tomato grower, had its 1999 production licence restricted to 300 tons as a penalty for marketing from unmeasured acreage in 1998.

In 1999, a relative of the appellant secured a new grower contract for 1,000 tons.

The respondent Board found that the appellant performed all the field work and effectively produced the relative's crop, thereby circumventing its licence restrictions.

The Board consequently refused to issue the appellant a licence for 2000.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding on a balance of probabilities that the appellant engaged in an arrangement to contravene its 1999 licence conditions, justifying the Board's refusal to issue a 2000 licence.

The County of Elgin appealed an engineer's report regarding the Greer Drains #1 and #2 Outlets under the Drainage Act.

The County argued that the proposed 2-year storm design standard was excessive and that the assessments charged to the County for outlet and benefit were disproportionately high.

The Tribunal found that the proposed design, which accommodated the entire storm flow in the tile drain, was unnecessary and directed the engineer to reconsider the design to utilize the combined capacity of the tile and the existing grassed waterway.

The Tribunal also found that the benefit assessment to the County road was too high and that upstream properties relieved of drainage problems should be assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal ordered the report to be referred back to the engineer for reconsideration and adjustment of the assessments.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying a crop insurance claim for its 1999 Spanish onion crop.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement for $54,223.30.

The Tribunal endorsed the settlement and allowed the appeal to the extent of the settlement amount.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal to resolve a dispute with the respondent regarding interest owed on returned parts following the termination of a dealership agreement.

The applicant claimed interest under the Farm Implements Act for three specific items.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay interest on two of the items, finding that the parts should have been accepted under the Act's repurchase provisions and that a credit application was submitted on time.

The Tribunal denied interest on the third item, a damaged conditioner roller, finding the principal payment was a settlement concession rather than a statutory repurchase.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the Bartlett Creek Municipal Drain Downstream Section under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued the report was incomplete, the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, and their individual assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeal, finding the report complete and the benefits commensurate with the costs.

The Tribunal partially granted the section 54 appeal, ordering modifications to the assessment schedules to properly account for special benefits and to remove certain prior consulting and carrying charges from the project's estimated costs.

Costs of $750 were awarded against two of the appellants for bringing a frivolous appeal.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a modification to a township by-law concerning the repair and improvement of the Travis Drain.

Following the adoption of an engineer's report, a property owner requested a change in the culvert end treatment from rip-rap to pre-cast concrete headwalls, agreeing to pay the increased cost as a special benefit assessment.

The Tribunal exercised its authority under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, ordering the municipal clerk to insert specific modifying language and to notify affected owners of their right to appeal.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the repair of the Edgar Sideroad Drain.

The engineer had based the assessments on a 1979 report but later provided a revised schedule that changed almost every property's assessment.

The appellants and other assessed owners raised concerns about the calculation of cut-off benefits, watershed boundaries, and the distribution of costs.

The engineer acknowledged errors and requested the report be referred back.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer for reconsideration under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, with specific recommendations for the revised report, and ordered that the engineering costs for the revision and hearing not be charged to the drainage project.

Several landowners and municipalities appealed the engineer's report and Court of Revision decisions regarding the Séguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain.

The appellants challenged the assessments, the allowances for land taken and damages, and the proposed alignment of the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the specific appeals but ordered modifications to the engineer's report, including relocating a portion of the drain, adjusting land allowances, and directing that the cost of the road crossing be charged to the road authority pursuant to section 26 of the Drainage Act.