OAFRAAT 2002

The appellants appealed a municipal council's decision to deny their petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their lands required better drainage and requested the appointment of an engineer to assess the municipal drain's capacity.

The municipality and other assessed landowners opposed the petition, arguing the drain was recently cleaned and functioning properly.

The Tribunal found the petition invalid under Section 4 but, noting the appellants' offer to fund a preliminary report, ordered the municipality to appoint an engineer to prepare a preliminary report at the appellants' sole expense.

The Corporation of the Township of North Huron applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to procure an engineer's report under Section 76 of the Drainage Act to vary the assessment on the Whitfield Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal granted the application, noting that the neighboring Municipality of Morris-Turnberry did not object and that the engineer recommended a Section 76 report as the required work did not warrant the cost of a Section 78 report.

The requesters, Dave and Mary Gardner, sought a review of a previous Tribunal decision regarding the Foreman Municipal Drain Improvement.

They argued they were unfairly drawn into an appeal under section 64 of the Drainage Act and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to modify the original engineer's report by incorporating new tile mains across their property and fixing an allowance.

The Vice Chairman denied the request for review, finding no significant new evidence, no material error of law or fact, and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under sections 51(1) and 101 of the Drainage Act to make the modifications.

The public interest in finality outweighed the alleged prejudice to the requesters.

Sunnybrook Farms appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding Sunnybrook's entitlement to a periodic allocation base of 100,000 kilograms of chicken for slaughter.

Sunnybrook argued it had never relinquished its 100,000 kg base allocation established under the 1996 system, while the CFO contended the request was untimely under the 1998 system.

The Tribunal granted the appeal, finding that the definition of supply in the 1996 policy was ambiguous and that Sunnybrook, as a non-member of processor organizations, relied on the CFO to represent its interests.

The Tribunal ordered the CFO to hold a hearing into Sunnybrook's entitlement.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to cancel his basic production quota and his 2001 marketing quota after he admitted to illegally selling tobacco.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the basic production quota but varied the penalty regarding the 2001 crop, allowing it to be marketed subject to a fine equivalent to 20% of the proceeds.

The Tribunal found that the timing of the Board's hearing created an inequity for the appellant and his sharegrowers, who had already incurred harvest costs.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding six somatic cell count (SCC) test results in the penalty range, which ultimately led to their farm being shut off from shipping milk.

The appellants argued that the official test results were inaccurate and inconsistent with independent tests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the high SCC scores were caused by a high incidence of Staph. aureus mastitis in the herd, combined with less than adequate management by the producers.

The Tribunal found no evidence of anomalies in the standard procedures used for sampling and testing the milk.