OAFRAAT 2004

The appellants appealed an engineer's report prepared under Section 40 of the Drainage Act concerning the Clear Creek Drain.

The project was initiated under Section 78 but was abandoned after landowners objected to the estimated costs.

The engineer assessed the costs of the abandoned report against the landowners based on a 1915 assessment schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the municipality and engineer handled the process poorly by allowing costs to accumulate without landowner support, the Act does not permit the Tribunal to order the municipality to bear the costs.

The Tribunal ordered the costs to be pro-rated among the lands in the watershed on an acreage basis.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision not to vary his assessment on a municipal drain.

The appellant argued his property did not benefit from the works and that the drain served a housing development.

The Tribunal found the engineer used an acceptable method to distribute costs and that the appellant was treated fairly.

The Tribunal denied the appeal but ordered a reallocation of engineering and overhead costs to reduce outlet assessments.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board regarding the payment for two loads of hogs.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to obtain transcripts of telephone conversations between the Board and his transporter.

The Board objected, arguing the relevant transcripts were already provided and post-shipment calls were irrelevant.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered the Board to produce redacted transcripts of the requested telephone conversations, finding they may contain relevant information.

The appellant, Zantingh Direct Inc., appealed decisions of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board regarding the framework for buying and selling 'off-sort' or 'lightweight' hogs.

Following several days of hearings and an adjournment to allow the parties to negotiate a '5% proposal', the parties failed to reach an agreement.

The appellant requested a motion for early disclosure of an expert's report to be used at the hearing.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling the motion to be heard on June 25, 2004, and set deadlines for the service of motion materials and replies.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the relocation of a municipal drain across their fruit farm.

They argued the proposed open ditch would sever their property, destroy mature fruit trees, and that they were inadequately compensated and unfairly assessed.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer to revise the report to enclose the portion of the drain crossing the appellants' property, to revisit the allowances to account for actual land use and tree damage, and to cap the benefit assessment to the appellants at 15% of the cost of the abutting works.

The appellant appealed under Section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of work on the Lownsbrough and Spray Drains on his property.

He alleged that the spoil from the excavation was not spread in accordance with the specifications, fences were not properly re-established, and the property was not adequately re-seeded.

The Tribunal found that the work was done within the specifications of the engineer's report, the fences were satisfactorily replaced, and the lands were re-seeded.

The appeal was dismissed.

The engineer, K. Smart Associates Limited, requested a review and clarification of a previous Tribunal decision regarding the Hambly-Sabourin Drain 2001 and the Beaulac-Beach Drain 2001.

The Tribunal issued a preliminary order determining that the review would be conducted by way of an oral hearing, focusing on the seven points raised by the engineer, and invited parties to make written submissions regarding this provisional order.

K. Smart and Associates Limited requested a review of the Tribunal's September 29, 2003 decision regarding appeals from an engineer's report on the Hambly-Sabourin Drain 2001 and the Beaulac-Beach Drain 2001.

The requester argued the decision lacked clarity and presented new evidence regarding the substantial cost of the ordered work.

The Tribunal granted the request for review, noting the concerns outlined by the engineer, and appointed a new panel to conduct the review.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's decision to deny his crop insurance claim for his 2003 cucumber crop.

The appellant argued he was promised coverage for both fresh and processing markets, but the policy only covered contracted processor acreage, which he overfilled.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant violated the policy by failing to report damage in a timely manner and by destroying the crop before Agricorp could inspect it to verify an insured peril.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision upholding a high bacteria test result on milk produced on his farm, which prevented him from receiving an annual quality award.

The appellant argued the high count was caused by unauthorized adjustments to his milking equipment by technicians servicing a time-temperature recording device.

The Tribunal found the laboratory test result was valid and that the evidence did not support the contention that the technicians' actions caused the high bacteria count.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed AGRICORP's adjustment of his 2002 corn crop insurance claim.

The appellant suffered crop losses due to drought, but AGRICORP reduced his guaranteed production due to poor farm management practices, including inadequate fertilizer application and weed control, and attributed undeclared corn to his yield.

The Tribunal found that AGRICORP's investigation was thorough and its adjustment was fair, ordering AGRICORP to pay the previously offered settlement amount of $34,200.64.

Georgian Bay Milk Company Ltd. appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying its request to extend the transition period for its non-quota holding producers to continue shipping export milk without quota.

The appellant sought an extension until a national dairy export system was established and BSE border closures were resolved.

The Tribunal denied the appeal for an indefinite extension, finding that a parallel milk marketing system would be detrimental to the quota-based system.

However, recognizing the impact of the BSE crisis, the Tribunal extended the transition period to July 31, 2004, after which the producers must comply with the minimum quota requirement.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a non Grade A penalty assessed by the Director of Regulatory Compliance for non-compliance with raw milk quality regulations.

The penalty was imposed after inspections revealed structural issues and dirty animals on the farm.

The Tribunal found that while the structural issues were resolved, the farm did not meet the cleanliness standards for cows and the heifer barn set out in Regulation 761 under the Milk Act on the relevant inspection dates.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the incorporation of an existing private drain as a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that the drain was not required, its location should be changed, and the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that a municipal drain was required but expressed concern over the condition of the existing private drain.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to determine if the drain could be connected to a sanitary sewer, and if not, to redesign the drain to current provincial standards with a route closer to the appellant's property line.

The Tribunal also adjusted the benefit assessments between the properties.

The appellant, a dairy farmer and member of a transport co-operative, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) that reassigned his milk pick-up to a different transporter as part of a route rationalization.

The appellant argued this would cause him to lose his co-operative membership and associated financial benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the DFO acted within its authority and that the rationalization achieved significant cost savings for the dairy industry as a whole, which outweighed the appellant's individual preference.

The Tribunal also denied the appellant's request for compensation.

The appellants, a group of dairy farmers, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding its over-quota milk payment policy.

In a pre-hearing motion, the appellants sought to have the Tribunal adopt the Rules of Civil Procedure to hear the appeal as a class action suit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it derives its jurisdiction solely from its enabling statutes and has no inherent or statutory jurisdiction to entertain class action suits.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of a Tribunal decision ordering the construction of a municipal drain along 'Alternative C'.

The Municipality and the project engineer advocated for 'Alternative B', citing landowner concerns and potential costs.

The Tribunal found that the engineer lacked independence and failed to properly investigate 'Alternative C'.

However, given a petition from 20 landowners supporting 'Alternative B', the Tribunal ordered construction along that route.

The Tribunal also ordered that engineering and legal costs incurred since February 2003 be assessed as a special benefit to the Municipality, as the subsequent proceedings were driven by the Municipality and provided no benefit to the drain.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director of Regulatory Compliance upholding a penalty for a positive inhibitor test on a milk sample taken from his farm.

The appellant argued that his record keeping was adequate and that the positive test result was impossible given his practices.

The Tribunal found that the laboratory test was conclusive for the presence of cephapirin in the milk and that there was no evidence the inhibitor was introduced anywhere other than the farm.

The Tribunal denied the appeal and upheld the prescribed penalty.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Evert Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

They challenged the assessments on their properties, the assessment on the Evert property, and the allowances provided to the municipality for constructing branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the assessments for statutory benefit and outlet liability were appropriate and within the acceptable range.

The Tribunal also found that while the municipality's process of constructing the branch drains before the report was finalized was flawed, the allowances provided were lower than the actual costs and therefore fair.

The appeals were dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Bluewater Properties Drain 2003.

The appellants argued that their properties in Phase 1 of the subdivision were already served by a private drain and should not be assessed for the new municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that the municipal drain would benefit Phase 1 owners by providing a reliable, municipality-maintained outlet.

The Tribunal ordered the installation of additional private drain connections, reduced the project cost estimate by removing a portion of a previous engineering report's cost, and reduced the statutory benefit assessments for the Phase 1 lots to reflect their existing private drainage.

The appeals were allowed in part.