OAFRAAT 2002

The appellant and respondent jointly brought a preliminary motion requesting that the appeal of a pricing order set by the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board be decided by way of a final offer selection process.

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

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

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under section 48 of the Drainage Act which determined that the proposed Allan-Connell Municipal Drain could not be constructed.

The engineer filed a section 40 report after a petitioner withdrew her name, rendering the petition for drainage invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's report, finding that the area requiring drainage was correctly identified and that it was impractical to proceed with the drainage works due to the invalid petition.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's reports concerning the Upper and Lower W.J. Douglas Municipal Drains, raising concerns about assessments, culvert sizes, and the sufficiency of the Little Rideau Creek as an outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the assessment variation but ordered amendments to the engineer's report.

The Tribunal directed that the drainage works be extended downstream to the Ottawa River to remove obstructions and alleviate flooding risks, and imposed restrictions on the size of future culverts to control water flow.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision assessing a penalty for failing to meet Grade A standards under Regulation 761 of the Milk Act.

A fieldperson found the farm's milking equipment was not in good repair and the milkhouse was not neat and clean.

The appellant argued the farm was clean and the penalty was unjustified.

The Tribunal found sufficient evidence that the milking equipment was not thoroughly cleaned, showed signs of 'inking', and the milkhouse was untidy.

The appeal was denied and the penalty upheld.

The appellants requested a review of a final decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding their crop insurance claims.

The request was filed almost a year after the decision, well beyond the 30-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellants argued they were prejudiced by the respondent introducing two documents at the hearing without prior notice.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no good reason for the delay, no material error of law or fact, and no significant new evidence that would have changed the outcome.

The appellant hatchery appealed decisions of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission (OBHECC) assessing fines for obstructing an inspector, failing to report bird sales, and failing to produce requested information.

The appellant also requested the Tribunal to order OBHECC to issue Hatching Egg Market Share for special dual purpose birds.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding market share for lack of jurisdiction, as the appellant had not first applied to OBHECC.

After hearing evidence, the Tribunal upheld all fines, finding that the appellant knowingly failed to fulfill its obligations under the regulated marketing scheme.

Several assessed landowners appealed the engineer's report for the Walker Drain Improvement under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed route for the drain relocation was not optimal and that the assessment of costs was unfair.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be referred back to the engineer to redesign the drain along an alternative route proposed by the appellants' engineer, which more closely aligned with the existing drain and minimized property damage.

The Tribunal also ordered modifications to the assessment methodology, adjusting the allocation of statutory benefits between roads and residential lands.

The appellants, tobacco farmers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board refusing to permit them to change their Declarations of 2001 Tobacco Kiln Conversion to reflect 20 additional kilns.

The appellants had purchased the kilns to replace rented ones prior to the announcement of a rebate program, but an inspector incorrectly advised them not to include the new kilns on their declarations.

The Tribunal found that the appellants relied on the detrimental advice of the inspector and that the kilns were eligible for funding under the program guidelines.

The appeal was granted, and the Board was ordered to pay the appellants $1,500 for each of the 20 additional kilns.

The Township of Champlain brought a written application for directions regarding the appropriate notices for a consolidated hearing of several appeals concerning the Upper and Lower W.J. Douglas Municipal Drains.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the appeals by Ulrich Schaerer, Jean-Paul Cusson, Victor Reasbeck, and Cindy Sauve.

The Tribunal directed that notice of the hearings be given to all assessed persons and adjoining landowners, and that only the engineer's Preliminary Report (excluding maps and appendices) needed to be served, provided notice was given that the full documents were available for inspection at the municipal offices.

The appellants requested a review of a Tribunal decision that upheld penalties assessed against them for high somatic cell counts in their milk.

They argued the Tribunal made procedural errors and failed to meet its obligations under the French Language Services Act by including a unilingual English member on the panel, despite their request for a fully bilingual panel.

The Tribunal confirmed its original decision, finding no errors in the laboratory test results and concluding that the provision of simultaneous translation during the hearing satisfied the requirements of the French Language Services Act.

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

The Tribunal found that conditions had changed, justifying a variation, and granted the requested permission.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board cancelling their basic production quota for participating in illegal sales of tobacco.

The Tribunal found that evidence from an RCMP investigation supported the finding that tobacco was shipped from the appellants' farm to Quebec on two occasions and that the appellants were aware of these shipments.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty of quota cancellation, finding it appropriate given the severity of the infraction in a highly regulated industry.

The appellants appealed Agricorp's denial of their crop insurance claims for replanting black tobacco crops.

Agricorp denied the claims on the basis that an insured peril was not established, the crops were replanted without prior consent, and in one case, replanted after the deadline.

The Tribunal found that excessive moisture, an insured peril, caused the damage.

The Tribunal also found that the processor's consent was not required, the adjuster's comments could be interpreted as permission to replant, and the planting deadline should be extended for one appellant due to Agricorp's delay.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to pay the claims.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying their request for an exemption from a regulation requiring tobacco kilns to be located on the grower's own land to be eligible for a provincial conversion rebate.

The appellants sought the rebate for kilns located on a farm owned by a family member.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the eligibility criteria were published, applied consistently, and were not unreasonable.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Smith Municipal Drain.

The appellants objected to the proposed location of the drain and the associated assessments.

The Tribunal found that the original engineer's report, which located the drain on the Béliveau and Lalonde properties, was the most economical and least disruptive option, rejecting a revised report that moved the drain to the Cusson property.

The Tribunal ordered the adoption of the original report with modifications, including the provision of a berm, a fence allowance for Cusson, and special benefit assessments to cover the extra engineering costs and the fence.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Paradise Road Drain under the Drainage Act, seeking a change in the drain's location and increased compensation.

During the hearing, the appellants and the respondent municipality reached a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised in accordance with the settlement, which relocated the drain, reduced the appellants' assessment to zero, and increased their right-of-way allowance.

The Wine Council of Ontario and several winery growers appealed decisions of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board regarding substantial increases in license fees for the 2001 vintage year.

The appellants sought the release of the Board's budget, a reversal of the fee increases, and the withdrawal of late payment penalties and interest on withheld fees.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted within its authority to increase fees and was not obligated to release its confidential budget.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal regarding penalties, ordering that the 5% penalty be applied to outstanding fees but staying the 2% monthly interest until April 15, 2002.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Klijn Municipal Drain.

The engineer had proposed a Northern route for a closed tile drain, which was more expensive but preferred by neighbouring landowners to avoid crossing their properties.

The appellant argued for a Western route following the natural flow of water or an open ditch.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Western route was cheaper, followed the natural water flow, and would service the entire watershed.

The Tribunal directed the municipality to refer the report back to the engineer to design the drain along the Western route and give downstream owners the option of an open or closed drain.

The appellant processor sought to appeal an order of the respondent board regarding a dockage dispute over potato shipments.

The appeal was filed more than one year after the appellant had knowledge of the order.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference to determine whether to exercise its discretion under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to hear the appeal despite the delay.

The Tribunal declined to hear the appeal, finding that the appellant had engaged in self-help by withholding funds rather than utilizing the regulated marketing system's dispute resolution mechanisms in a timely manner.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying her request for a reduction in a monetary penalty of $2,642.53 assessed for over-marketing chicken.

The appellant argued that the processor was partially responsible for the over-production and should share the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate private contractual disputes between producers and processors, and noting that the appellant agreed the penalty amount itself was fair.