Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
APPEAL:
George Vanderbeke Farm Access Bridge over the 10th Concession Branch of the Irwin Drain Town of Kingsville
George Vanderbeke Farm Access Bridge over the 10th Concession Branch of the Irwin Drain (RE) [Review Application Decision] 2002 ONAFRAAT 39
STATUTE:
Drainage Act
HEARING:
November 7, 2002
November 7, 2002
2002-39
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2002 ONAFRAAT 39
George Vanderbeke Farm Access Bridge over the 10th Concession Branch of the Irwin Drain [Review Application Decision]
Town of Kingsville
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: An appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by George Vanderbeke, Cottam, Ontario under Section 48, and Section 54 of the Drainage Act from the Court of Revision and the Engineer’s Report on the Farm Access Bridge Over the Irwin Drain – Owner George Vanderbeke in the Town of Kingsville.
Before: Andrew Osyany, Vice Chair
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
This matter was considered by the Tribunal in Shelburne, Ontario on Thursday, November 7, 2002. A written submission was received from Mr. Keith Vanderbeke, on behalf of Mr. George Vanderbeke, an assessed owner on this drain, for the review of the decision of the Tribunal, dated September 20, 2002.
Background/Evidence
Mr. George Vanderbeke is an assessed owner on the Irwin Drain in the Town of Kingsville. His construction of a farm access bridge over the drain resulted in a disagreement with the municipality, which led to an engineer’s report on the situation. Mr. Vanderbeke appealed from the engineer’s report to the Tribunal. The Tribunal hearing was held on August 30, 2002. Witnesses were called on behalf of Mr. George Vanderbeke (including Mr. Keith Vanderbeke) and the municipality. The Tribunal issued its decision on September 20, 2002. The decision runs to nine pages and contains an extensive review of the evidence. The Tribunal ordered that the project be constructed in accordance with the engineer’s report. The Tribunal also ordered Mr. Vanderbeke to pay $1,000 towards the costs of the hearing, with the balance of the costs assessed against the Town of Kingsville.
Mr. Keith Vanderbeke applied for a review of the Tribunal decision by letter dated October 31, 2002. The application is in point form, raising 25 reasons for a review, and 5 points of the desired outcome of the review.
The points raised by Mr. Vanderbeke in favour of the reconsideration are all to the effect that
- the Tribunal did not accept the evidence tendered on behalf of Mr. Vanderbeke
- the Tribunal did not draw the conclusions from the evidence that Mr. Vanderbeke wished the Tribunal to draw
The five points of the desired outcome of the review are partly specific to the case and partly wide-ranging, extending to the Board of Management and all other Boards, Tribunals, Ministries and Municipalities.
No notice of the application for reconsideration has been given to any of the other parties, and therefore, no submissions have been received from any of them.
Findings
Although the request for the review was filed after the time limit provided for in the Rules of Procedure, leave is given for the late filing, based on the explanations of the applicant.
Although the assessed owner is not the applicant, the applicant appears to be a duly authorized agent, and therefore this application for a review is properly constituted.
There are five listed criteria in evaluating applications for review. The only applicable ground for the review of the Tribunal decision in question is whether the Tribunal made a material error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.
I have carefully considered the points raised by the applicant and I find nothing in them leading me to think that the Tribunal made a material error of law or fact. The Tribunal heard the applicant’s evidence and rejected some of it, while holding other evidence to be irrelevant to the determination of the questions in front of the Tribunal. This happens in every case, and it is part of the nature of the process. I have also carefully considered the Tribunal decision and find that the facts were carefully canvassed and the law applied properly.
The applicant has failed to make out a case for the review of the Tribunal decision.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
After careful consideration of the submissions made, the Tribunal orders that:
The appeal by George Vanderbeke through Keith Vanderbeke for a review of the decision of the Tribunal, dated September 20, 2002, is dismissed.
DATED this the 7th day of November, 2002.