OAFRAAT 2002

The appellants appealed an engineer's report regarding a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to re-route a portion of the drain to avoid a conflict with the appellants' septic system.

At the hearing, another landowner requested a modification to shorten a proposed culvert on his property, which would reduce costs.

The Tribunal approved the minutes of settlement and ordered the engineer's report to be amended to reflect the re-routing and the shortened culvert, adjusting the cost and assessment schedules accordingly.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the reconstruction of the Rutherford Drain.

They argued the proposed works were unnecessary, the assessments were unfair, and the engineer acted unprofessionally by entering their property without observing bio-security signage.

The Tribunal found the engineer acted professionally and the works were necessary due to the undersized and aging drain.

However, the Tribunal modified the assessments, reducing the benefit assessment against the McDonald property and increasing it for other benefiting properties.

The appellant appealed a pricing order by the respondent marketing board that increased the price of live turkeys.

The appellant argued for a smaller price increase due to weak market conditions and lower processor margins.

The respondent justified the larger increase based on higher feed costs incurred by producers.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the increase in feed costs warranted the respondent's price increases and that the timing of the increase during the festive season would allow processors to pass costs onto customers.

The applicant municipality applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the maintenance assessments on four drains under section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The municipality cited changes in watersheds, municipal boundaries, and land use as reasons for updating the outdated assessment schedules.

The neighbouring municipality consented to the application.

The Tribunal granted the municipality permission to appoint an engineer to procure the reports.

The appellant, a tobacco grower, appealed decisions of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his requests to extend the deadline for kiln conversion grants, to rent out 100% of his 2002 marketing quota, and to reverse the reduction of his 2002 marketing quota.

The appellant argued that a financial dispute involving his parents' farm prevented him from planting a crop and converting his kilns on time.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant was treated no differently than other growers, the financial dispute was foreseeable, and the Board's rationale for restricting quota rentals to active growers was reasonable.

Two landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Nithburg Drain No. 2.

One appellant argued that the branch drain primarily benefited adjacent residential lots rather than his agricultural property, while the other objected to a drain stub on his property and its associated assessment.

The Tribunal found that the residential lots received more benefit from the branch drain than the agricultural property and ordered the assessments varied accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the drain stub on the second appellant's property to provide a legal outlet, but ordered the addition of a hickenbottom connection.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report on the Smith Drain Extension under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The report proposed constructing two storm water management structures (Alternative 1) to address erosion on the appellants' property.

The appellants preferred Alternative 3, which included a fenced detention pond and a closed drain.

The Tribunal found that Alternative 3 was the optimal long-term solution, as Alternative 1 would only relocate the erosion problem.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to redesign the drainage works incorporating Alternative 3.

The applicant, an assessed owner on a municipal drain, applied for a review of a previous Tribunal decision that ordered a farm access bridge to be constructed in accordance with an engineer's report.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal did not accept his evidence or draw his desired conclusions.

The Tribunal dismissed the review application, finding no material error of law or fact in the original decision.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the Walker Drain Improvement project, citing new evidence about utility lines and costs that made the Tribunal's ordered route more expensive.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the municipality's engineer and several assessed landowners.

Finding the evidence insufficient to justify altering the route without further investigation, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and ordered the engineer to provide detailed plans, cost estimates, and consultation reports for alternative routes before making a final determination.

The appellant and respondent jointly brought a preliminary motion requesting that the Tribunal deal with an appeal of a turkey pricing order by way of a final offer selection process.

The Tribunal noted that both parties favoured this resolution method and were familiar with it from previous appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion and ordered that the dispute be settled by final offer arbitration.

The appellant petitioned for drainage works to address seasonal flooding on agricultural lands.

The municipal council refused to adopt the engineer's report, citing cost-benefit concerns.

On appeal, the Tribunal found overwhelming evidence of the necessity of the proposed drainage works and accepted the project engineer's unchallenged professional opinion that the benefits justified the costs.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to pass the provisional by-law adopting the engineer's report.

The appellant constructed a farm access bridge over a municipal drain without an engineer's report.

The municipality ordered construction to stop and appointed an engineer to prepare a report to bring the bridge into compliance with municipal standards.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision, arguing the bridge met provincial standards and the municipality's unwritten policies were discriminatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the municipality had the authority to enforce its construction standards and that reasonable efforts were made to compromise.

The Tribunal ordered the bridge to be constructed in accordance with the engineer's report and assessed $1,000 in hearing costs against the appellant.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP regarding a crop insurance claim for their 2000 corn crop.

The appeal was filed after the one-year limitation period prescribed by regulation.

AGRICORP argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to extend the time.

The Tribunal found that it had the administrative mandate to grant extensions in appropriate circumstances.

Given that the appellants had actively pursued their claim through a review committee, were not warned of the impending deadline, and AGRICORP suffered no prejudice, the Tribunal extended the time for filing the appeal.

The Municipality of Thames Centre and several landowners requested a review of a prior Tribunal decision that ordered modifications to an engineer's report for the Walker Drain Improvement.

The Tribunal found that the delay in requesting the review was justified because the construction and liability details of the alternative drain routes only recently became apparent.

Concluding that this constituted significant new evidence under Rule 29.09(a) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered an oral hearing to review its previous decision.

The appellants appealed AGRICORP's decision not to insure and pay an adjustment of claim for 138 acres of soybeans, as only 100 acres were recorded in the Final Acreage Report.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had ample opportunity to review and correct the acreage summary but failed to do so through his own neglect.

However, the Tribunal found that including the yield from the unreported 38 acres in the calculation for the 100 insured acres created a double penalty.

The Tribunal ordered AGRICORP to recalculate the claim based on a yield of 13.83 bushels per acre on the 100 insured acres.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision to reject a petition for drainage works on his properties under section 5 of the Drainage Act.

During the hearing, the parties negotiated Minutes of Settlement wherein the appellant agreed to withdraw his petition and pay a portion of the engineering fees, while the municipality agreed to consider drainage improvements.

The Tribunal accepted the settlement, dismissed the appeal, and made no order as to costs.

Frey's Hatchery Ltd. requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision that upheld fines imposed by the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission.

The requester submitted a letter but no new evidence.

The Tribunal found that the request merely attempted to re-argue the case and raised no new points or errors of law.

The request for review was denied.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report on the Eden Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns regarding the design of Drain A, including the outlet structure, the necessity of deepening the existing ditch, and the adequacy of compensation for land taken.

They also questioned the necessity of constructing Drain B as a petition drain rather than a mutual agreement drain, and the adequacy and allocation of compensation for an existing ditch incorporated into Drain B. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the engineer's designs accommodated landowner requests where possible, the allowances provided were reasonable and correctly allocated, and Drain B had to be constructed as a petition drain because not all landowners agreed to a mutual agreement drain.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision to adopt a revised engineer's report that deleted the proposed closing in of a portion of a municipal drain on his property.

The Tribunal found that the original report proposing the closing in was engineeringly sound and properly assessed.

The Tribunal held that the council's reversal of its initial approval was arbitrary and based solely on the presence of opponents at a council meeting, rather than on the merits of the project.

The appeal was granted, and the municipality was ordered to adopt the original report and absorb the costs of the revised report.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Outlet Portion of the 2nd Concession Drain West of Wigle Creek.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted a joint recommendation to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted the minutes of settlement, dismissing the appeal of the engineer's report and allowing the appeal from the Court of Revision to amend the assessment schedule by transferring $36,500 from outlet liability to benefit assessments for two roads.