OAFRAAT 2006

In a crop insurance appeal concerning adjustments to 2002 and 2003 soybean crop claims, the appellant sought a last-minute adjournment by email on the eve of the hearing, citing illness.

The respondent asked the tribunal to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, award costs for wasted preparation and attendance expenses.

The tribunal held it would be inequitable to dismiss the appeal because an earlier adjournment requested by the respondent had been granted, but found the appellant's eleventh-hour request caused avoidable expense and delay.

The hearing was adjourned, and the respondent was awarded $1,500.00 in costs as partial compensation and as a deterrent against last-minute adjournment requests.

The appellant tobacco farming company appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying its request for an exemption to rent out 100% of its 2005 marketing quota.

The appellant had mistakenly submitted a low bid to a federal buyout program, which was accepted, leading it to abandon preparations for the 2005 crop.

Although the appellant successfully appealed the buyout and had its basic production quota restored in late May, it argued it was too late to fumigate and plant a viable crop.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was responsible for its own decisions and was not convinced that a crop could not have been planted despite the tight timelines.

Appeals were brought under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report and Court of Revision assessments for the Saxon Drain.

The appellants sought modifications to the drain's design and cost-sharing assessments.

The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing assessments but ordered modifications to the drain's design, including the incorporation of a private junction box and a berm, and the installation of a new cross-connected catchbasin to better utilize the older part of the drain.

The engineer was directed to recalculate allowances for the incorporated works.

The requesting parties sought a review of a previous Tribunal decision that quashed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act and assessed costs against them.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to review the decision to hear late-filed appeals, finding no material error of law.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to review the costs award, as the requesting parties had not been given an opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The original panel was ordered to reconvene to receive written submissions on the allocation of costs.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Krueger Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the proposed route, design, allowances, and assessments.

The appellant argued for an alternative east-west drainage route and disputed the compensation for land and trees.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the engineer's report to be logical, well-reasoned, and fair.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's proposed north-south route and found no professional evidence to support the appellant's preferred alternative.

The appellant appealed under Section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of the Ross Drain 2004.

The parties reached an agreement through Amended Minutes of Settlement to address deficiencies in the construction, including issues with lateral tiles, topsoil, and upstream berms.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfactory and ordered the parties to complete the undertakings, adding $1,423.13 to the final cost of the project.

The appellants appealed a Court of Revision decision that removed the Kilbride lands from assessments for the repair and improvement of the Dykeman Pumping Works.

The Tribunal found that the Kilbride lands are within the Dykeman watershed and benefit from its flood protection, particularly during large storm events.

The Tribunal granted the appeal under section 54 of the Drainage Act, reinstating the engineer's assessments with one clerical correction, and dismissed the appeal under section 48(1)(b) to modify the drainage works.

The appellants appealed their assessment for the replacement of an agricultural access culvert over the Deslippe Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued their property was too far from the culvert to benefit and requested that the municipality pay the assessment since it was under $50.

The Tribunal found the engineer's assessment fair and equitable, noting the appellants' property contributed water to the culvert.

The Tribunal also held that waiving assessments under $50 is at the municipality's discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an abattoir operator, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency ordering it to pay outstanding license fees, finance charges, and a $1,000 fine, subject to a payment schedule and threat of license suspension.

The appellant argued financial hardship and disputed the slaughter numbers.

The Tribunal found the agency's slaughter data valid and upheld the requirement to remit fees, noting that bad debts from customers do not relieve the operator of its regulatory obligations.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of correcting a $374.82 billing error agreed upon by the parties; the $1,000 fine and payment schedule were upheld.

The appellants, owners of agricultural land, petitioned the municipality for improved drainage.

The municipality appointed an engineer who prepared a report recommending a new drain.

The municipality's council refused to adopt the report, citing concerns about costs and setting a precedent for draining farmers' fields.

The appellants appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding a definite need for drainage and rejecting the municipality's rationale as lacking legal foundation.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to adopt the engineer's report and to pay the engineer's costs for attending the hearing.

The Tribunal reviewed its previous decision regarding the assessment of the Municipality's costs against the appellants in a dispute over the Eden Grove Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that they did not appeal the engineer's report on the advice of the Municipality, and that the Municipality chose the engineer.

The Tribunal found this rationale sound and reduced the costs assessed against the appellants, ordering the balance to be paid from the Municipality's general funds.

The appellants appealed under section 5 of the Drainage Act after the City of Welland took no action on their petition for drainage.

The Municipality requested an adjournment of the hearing until after November 30, 2006, due to a family health situation involving the City Solicitor.

The appellants objected, citing ongoing flooding damage.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to December 2006 in the interests of fairness, but noted no further adjournments would be granted for this reason.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision upholding a positive inhibitor test for penicillin in his milk, which resulted in the disposal of a milk load and regulatory penalties.

The appellant did not dispute the test results but argued the contamination was caused by sabotage related to his candidacy in a dairy board election.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove sabotage on a balance of probabilities and noting that milk producers bear the responsibility to ensure the quality of milk in their bulk tanks.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his claim under the Forage Rainfall Plan for his 2005 forage crop.

The appellant argued that his farm experienced severe drought and that he was unfairly denied a payout while neighbours in adjacent townships received one.

The Tribunal found that Agricorp correctly applied the terms of the area-based insurance contract, which relies on geographic townships and selected rain stations rather than individual farm yields.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's refusal to pay a claim related to his 2005 forage crop.

Agricorp had made administrative errors regarding notification of new rain stations and re-assigned many customers to higher-paying stations, but excluded the appellant because he had received a notification letter.

However, Agricorp paid a claim to another customer in the exact same circumstances as the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not treated fairly and equitably, and ordered Agricorp to re-adjust his claim using data from the higher-paying rain station.

Dairyland Transport Co-Operative requested a review of a June 20, 2006 Tribunal decision that dismissed its appeal regarding the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's (DFO) assignment policy.

Dairyland argued the Tribunal made material errors of fact and law in finding that the DFO was not required to compensate transporters for 'displaced milk volume'.

The Vice Chair reviewed the request under section 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and Tribunal Rule 29.08.

The Vice Chair found that the Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no material error of fact or law.

The request for review was denied.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Elliot Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the allowance for incorporating an existing tile drain was incorrectly split between him and his brother, and that he should receive the full allowance as the current owner of the land where the drain is located.

The Tribunal agreed that the allowance under section 31 of the Act must be assigned to the current owner of the property, not the descendant of a previous owner.

The Tribunal also found the allowance excessive and reduced it from $2,000 to $1,000.

The cost estimate and schedule of assessments were revised accordingly.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of their 2005 forage crop insurance claims.

They argued that the rainfall data collected at the Camden East rain station was inaccurate and that Agricorp should have used a weighted average rainfall measurement system.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence to challenge the reliability of the Camden East data and noting that the 2005 Forage Rainfall Plan did not include a monthly weighting provision.

The Tribunal also found that the alternative Environment Canada data proposed by the appellants was not reliable enough to be used.

Eight forage growers appealed Agricorp's adjustment of their 2005 crop insurance claims under the Forage Rainfall Plan.

The appellants argued that their claims should be adjusted upward because a rain station malfunctioned and because Agricorp failed to use a weighted average rainfall measurement system, which had been used in previous programs.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding insufficient evidence that the rain station data was unreliable.

The Tribunal also held that the appellants had purchased a new insurance product that explicitly used equal monthly weighting, and Agricorp had not misrepresented the terms of the contract.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp denying their 2005 forage crop insurance claim.

Agricorp had adjusted the claim based on rainfall data from the Percy rain station, which the appellants had selected after receiving a letter from Agricorp and calling its Call Centre.

The appellants argued they were not fully informed of their options and that Agricorp had re-adjusted other customers' claims who were similarly misinformed.

The Tribunal found that the Agricorp Call Centre representative gave incomplete advice by simply telling the appellants to select the station closest to their farm, failing to fully inform them of their options.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to adjust the claim using the Seymour rainfall station, which would result in a payout.