OAFRAAT 2005

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

A previous Tribunal decision incorporated a settlement agreement, which subsequently broke down over the exact location of the drain and the removal of trees.

The Tribunal reviewed the engineer's Addendum No. 1 and ordered that the drain be located as proposed in the addendum.

The Tribunal also ordered that affected landowners be given the option to retain spruce trees on their properties, reduced the allowances for tree damage, and denied the installation of a replacement hedge.

The appellant church appealed the municipality's decision not to accept its petition for drainage under section 5 of the Drainage Act.

The church had experienced severe flooding and initially sought a mutual agreement drain, which the municipality agreed to in principle but refused to fund.

The church subsequently filed a petition for drainage under section 4 of the Act, which the municipality rejected.

The Tribunal found that the municipality was within its right to reject the petition, but the church was also within its right to appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to proceed with the petition, finding that the failure to reach a mutual agreement did not preclude the consideration of a petition.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his crop insurance claim for his 2004 soybean crop.

The appellant argued that his yield loss was due to ineffective herbicides and excessive rain, while Agricorp contended the loss resulted from poor farming practices, including inadequate weed control and fertilizer use.

The Tribunal found that the yield loss was primarily caused by poor farming practices, though insured perils contributed slightly.

Acknowledging an underwriting error by Agricorp and a previous settlement offer, the Tribunal ordered Agricorp to pay the appellant $14,636.50.

Place Riviera Place Inc. appealed the Township of Champlain's decision not to adopt an engineer's report for the proposed Gauthier Municipal Drain.

The appellant sought the drain to provide an outlet for a proposed subdivision.

Several neighbouring landowners opposed the drain, arguing the appellant should bear the full cost.

The Tribunal found the proposed works were necessary and the engineer's report was sound.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to adopt the report and pass a provisional by-law, allowing the drainage process to continue.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed decisions of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) regarding the calculation of his final milk cheque, a refund of monies from the Fund for Milk and Cream Producers, and a request for an allocation of 100 kg of quota due to alleged unfair treatment.

The Tribunal declined jurisdiction over the refund issue.

On the merits, the Tribunal found no evidence that the DFO applied its policies unfairly or inconsistently with respect to the appellant's milk cheque or quota allocation.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the construction of a municipal drain, arguing their assessment was too high and the allowances provided to the neighbouring property were inappropriate.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' property would benefit from the cut-off of surface waters and improved outlet, justifying the assessment.

The Tribunal also held that the allowances for right-of-way and damages were reasonable.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Sinclair Drain, arguing his property was outside the watershed and received no benefit.

The engineer testified that the drain provided a cut-off benefit by preventing water from crossing a road and flooding the appellant's property.

The Tribunal found that while the risk of flooding was minimal, the drain did provide a cut-off benefit by alleviating that risk.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessments.

The petitioner requested a review of a Tribunal decision that rescinded a $1,500 allowance previously ordered in his favour.

The allowance had originally been conditional on the petitioner signing a release for potential erosion and pollution damages, which he subsequently refused to sign.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no error of law or fact in its previous decision and noting it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for insufficient outlet.

The appellant sought a second review of a Tribunal decision that denied his appeal for the continued use of 10 kg of milk quota on humanitarian grounds.

The appellant alleged conflicts of interest involving the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Tribunal due to ongoing litigation with the Crown.

The Chair of the Tribunal denied leave to consider the second request for review, finding no substantial new evidence or reason to warrant it.

The appellants, tobacco growers, appealed decisions of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board (OFCTGMB) denying their requests to rent out 100% of their 2004 marketing quota and to receive funding from a quality assurance program.

The appellants had opted not to grow a crop in 2004 in anticipation of participating in a federal Tobacco Assistance Program (TAP) buyout, which was ultimately delayed.

The Tribunal found that the OFCTGMB had created an expectation regarding the TAP without adequately communicating the risks, but that the appellants also bore responsibility for their business decisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appellants to rent out 80% of their 2004 marketing quota, but dismissed the appeal regarding the quality assurance program funding, as the appellants did not grow a crop and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria.

The appellants, tobacco growers who did not plant a crop in 2004 in anticipation of participating in a federal quota buyout program, appealed a decision by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board (OFCTGMB) that allowed them to rent out only 44% of their 2004 marketing quota.

The appellants sought to rent out 100% of their quota after the buyout program was delayed.

The Tribunal found that the OFCTGMB had actively promoted the federal program before details were finalized and did not adequately communicate the risks to growers.

Acknowledging shared responsibility between the OFCTGMB and the individual growers, the Tribunal ordered that the appellants be allowed to rent out 80% of their 2004 marketing quota.

Multiple hog producers appealed a marketing board decision increasing the service charge on Ontario hogs by $0.80 per hog to fund defence of U.S. countervail and anti-dumping proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the board acted within its authority and that the estimated defence costs justified the increased charge for a one-year period.

It rejected arguments that the defence should be financed from reserves or by cutting ongoing operations, finding that maintaining working capital and continuing other industry initiatives was fiscally prudent.

The appeals were dismissed, but the Tribunal ordered annual reporting to producers and required the increased fee to end once the trade-action expenses were paid.