Glover v. Agricorp, 2006 ONAFRAAT 29

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: appeals.tribunal@omaf.gov.on.ca

Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1, chemin Stone Ouest Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: appeals.tribunal@omaf.gov.on.ca

AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL

APPEAL: Glover v Agricorp

Glover v Agricorp 2006 ONAFRAAT 29

STATUTE: Crop Insurance Act

HEARING: July 19, 2006

DATE OF DECISION: August 23, 2006

2006-29

NEUTRAL CITATION: 2006 ONAFRAAT 29

IN THE MATTER OF The Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) and Ontario Regulation 140/96 under the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) 1996, S.O. 1996, C. 17, Schedule C.

AND IN THE MATTER OF: An appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Robert Glover and Denise Glover, Warkworth, Ontario from a decision of Agricorp concerning the adjustment of their claim for their 2005 forage crop under Regulation 380/97 and the Forage Rainfall Plan Insuring Agreement.

Before: Rod Stork, Chair; John O’Kane, Vice Chair; Cory Martens, Member; Cor Kapteyn, Member.

Appearances: Mr. Robert Glover, appellant Ms. Rebecca Givens, counsel to Agricorp, the respondent Mr. Tim Borho, witness for the respondent Mr. Fred Thomson, on behalf of the respondent

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

This appeal was heard in Cobourg, Ontario on Wednesday July 19, 2006. Mr. Robert Glover and Ms. Denise Glover appealed to the Tribunal from the decision of Agricorp for the adjustment of claim for their 2005 forage crop.

Statutory Context

Section 10 of the Crop Insurance Act (Ontario) states:

Referral of disputes 10. (1) If AgriCorp and a person disagree whether the person qualifies for a contract of insurance, except if the disagreement relates to the time during which a person may apply for a contract of insurance or file a final acreage report or its equivalent, or if AgriCorp and an insured person fail to resolve a dispute arising out of the adjustment of a claim under a contract of insurance, either may appeal the matter in dispute to the Tribunal.

Notice of appeal (2) To appeal a matter in dispute, the appellant shall file a written notice of appeal with the Tribunal and send a copy of the notice to the other party within the time specified by the regulations made under this Act.

Exclusive jurisdiction (3) The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all appeals arising under subsection (1).

Decision binding (4) The decision of the Tribunal in an appeal is binding on the parties, 1999, c. 12, Sched. A, s. 7 (2).

The Issue

Should Mr. and Ms. Glover’s 2005 forage claim be adjusted based on the rain fall data from the Seymour rain station?

Preliminary Matter

Ms. Rebecca Givens made a preliminary motion requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the matter because Mr. and Ms. Glover’s appeal was not styled in a form pursuant to the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act. Ms. Givens referred the Tribunal to Mr. and Ms. Glover’s March 16, 2006 letter of appeal to the Tribunal in which they stated that there were flaws in the design and parameters of the Forage Plan. Ms. Givens submitted that Section 10 of the Crop Insurance Act clearly indicated that an appeal from a dispute over the adjustment of claim could be heard by the Tribunal, however, there was no provision permitting the Tribunal to hear any disputes with respect to the underwriting of a contract of insurance.

Mr. Glover responded to Agricorp’s preliminary motion stating that; he was prepared to make submissions with respect to the adjustment of claim for $0.00 for his 2005 forage crop. Mr. Glover said that he was not familiar with all aspects of making an appeal to the Tribunal therefore his letter of appeal was not strictly within the forms acceptable to the parties however, his dispute with Agricorp was with respect to an adjustment of claim.

During submissions on Agricorp’s preliminary motion the Tribunal received the Appellant’s documentary materials that was marked as Exhibit #1 and the Respondent’s documentary materials that was marked as Exhibit #2.

After adjourning to consider the preliminary motion and Mr. Glover’s response, the Tribunal decided to hear the evidence with respect to Mr. Glover’s adjustment of claim. The preliminary motion was dismissed.

Opening Statements

Ms. Givens submitted the decisions of the Tribunal in the matters of Fergus et al versus Agricorp and Ledgecroft Farms Inc. versus Agricorp as supporting cases to Agricorp’s position. She stated that Mr. Glover had previously been copied with the decisions.

In her opening statement Ms. Givens said that Agricorp’s plan for forage does not provide for the measurement of forage yield. She explained that yield under the forage plan is indicated by the measurement of rainfall. She stated that claims are paid based on the comparison of measured rainfall against historic averages. Ms. Givens explained to the Tribunal that in 2005, customers were permitted to change the rain station for which data would be collected in the administration of their forage coverage. She said that Agricorp had fulfilled its obligations to Mr. Glover under the contract of insurance as it was legally obliged to do.

In his opening statement, Mr. Glover said that he has been farming in Percy Township since 1979. He stated that he cash crops approximately 900 acres and that he raises 100 head of cattle including young breeding stock. Mr. Glover said that he farms alone.

The Evidence

Robert Glover

Mr. Glover testified before the Tribunal. He stated that:

• Claims under the forage plan were adjusted based on data gathered at rain stations. The rain gauges used to measure rain fall were extremely accurate.
• Rain fall data was compared to historical records of rain fall that were measured using instruments that were not as accurate as today’s rain gauges.
• There is no dispute between producers and Agricorp that there was drought in 2005. In previous forage appeal decisions, the Tribunal had made the finding that there was drought in 2005.
• He received a letter from Agricorp dated April 12, 2005 (found in Exhibit #1 and #2) advising him to contact Agricorp with respect to obtaining information about new rain stations.
• He telephoned Agricorp in response to the April 12, 2005 letter and was informed that there was a new rain station in his township. The Call Center Representative with whom he spoke was vague in her description of the location of the new rain station.
• In 2005 he switched from Seymour rain station to Percy rain station as it seemed to be a reasonable choice because the Percy station was located closer to his farm.
• He was aware that there were two rain stations that he could choose from in 2005; Percy station and Seymour station.
• Much of the precipitation that fell in 2005 was a result of localized thunderstorms. He described watching rainstorms over Percy that completely by-passed his farm. On July 15, 2005, the Percy station received 2 mm more rain than any other rain station. On August 30 and 31, 2005, the last two days for data recording under the forage program, 46 mm of rain fell due to Hurricane Katrina.
• According to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) Publication 296 (found in Exhibit #1), critical harvest dates for his area are September 1, through October 10. Most of the rain that was recorded at the Percy rain station in 2005 fell at a time that was too late to positively affect the forage yield.
• His neighbour provided him with data for rainfall from the neighbouring farm as submitted in Exhibit #1. It was measured on a rain gauge. The rain gauge used by the neighbour is not as accurate as the gauges used by Agricorp. However, that data showed rainfall as noted below compared with the historical rainfall and the 2005 Percy Station rainfall:

Month	May	June	July	August	Total
Historic Rainfall	77.1	78.7	61.6	75.6	293.0
Percy Station	22.2	92.8	76.4	80.6	272.0
Neighbouring Farm	21.7	63.3	19.9	94.7	199.6

• In early September 2005 he received forage yield reports (found in Exhibit #1) and was denied a claim. He then immediately began calling Agricorp and the Agricorp records of communications in Exhibit #2 contain those communications except for those he had with Fred Thomson.
• In early September 2005, he began a series of conversations with Mr. Fred Thomson of Agricorp. Mr. Thomson indicated to him that the forage plan was operating correctly, and as it was designed to do. Mr. Thomson told him that he was denied a claim because he had responded to the April 12, 2005 letter from Agricorp.
• In November 2005 Agricorp began to hold public meetings in response to complaints from forage plan customers. At the meetings, Agricorp explained how the forage plan operated, and that nothing could be done to mitigate forage yield losses. Agricorp explained that the program operated within its design parameters and there would be no adjustments.
• Agricorp sent letters to forage customers on January 23, 2006 (found in Exhibit #1 and #2). The letters indicated that Agricorp had discovered a communication error in corresponding with producers about the forage plan however it would be re-adjusting a number of claims to remedy the error. There was no indication that Agricorp decided to re-adjust some claims in January 2006 as a result of customer reaction to the drought conditions.
• Agricorp made payment on an additional 1200 claims; some customers were re-assigned to rain stations that paid the highest claim based on the data recorded.
• The January 23, 2006 letter from Agricorp stated that claims were re-adjusted because, not all customers were aware that they had the option of choosing rain stations within their own township or adjacent townships. However, Agricorp stated in its 2005 Forage Rainfall Plan Factsheet (found in Exhibit #2) that this was a feature of how the plan operated. The 2005 Forage Rainfall Plan Factsheet was widely distributed as was other Agricorp literature that indicated that customers had the option of choosing a rain station.
• Ninety percent of customers had their claims re-adjusted and 10 percent received no payment. He received no payment.
• He requested a review of the claim denial through Agricorp’s internal review procedures but was informed that his application for adjustment of claim was denied by the Agricorp Issues Review Committee because it would be unfair to other customers to re-adjust his claim. It is unfair to him that Agricorp refuses to re-adjust his claim.
• Agricorp re-adjusted claims in an effort to please disgruntled forage customers. Ten percent of forage customers’ claims were ignored.
• Mr. Fred Thomson sympathized with his position.
• He was informed by Agricorp that there was no surety that all customers had received the letter of April 12, 2005, stating that new rain stations were available.

Mr. Glover responded to questions. He stated that:

• Agricorp re-adjusted claims without knowing for certain which customers were informed of the complete list of rain stations that they could choose from.
• He was informed by an Agricorp representative that it was not possible to assist customers who were not paid a claim without the permission of the Minister of Agriculture. He contacted the Minister, who referred him to OMAFRA. OMAFRA referred him back to Agricorp.
• He understands the calculations used to determine his denial of payment of a claim, however, the design of the plan is called into question given that Agricorp re-adjusted other customers’ claims.
• He received the April 12, 2005 letter from Agricorp and telephoned the Customer Action Centre as he was advised to do. The representative with whom he spoke advised him to choose the station closest to his farm. He switched to Percy station and was given a confirmation number as a record of the change.
• He was aware that he could have chosen from Seymour station or Percy station.
• A ridge at the location of the Percy station causes precipitation to fall within a very small area surrounding the Percy station.

Tim Borho

Mr. Tim Borho provided testimony as a witness for Agricorp. He told the Tribunal that:

• He is the Account Lead for Agricorp’s Livestock Production Insurance with duties that include overseeing the administration of the forage plan. He has been with Agricorp since August 2005. He worked as a financial verifier for the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program. He grew up on a dairy farm and operated a cash crop business including the production of forage, for six years.
• The crop insurance plan for forage was piloted in 2000 and became widely available to farmers in 2003.
• As of 2005, Agricorp maintains 350 rain gauges in Ontario, for data recording under the forage plan.
• Claims under the forage plan are paid based on the use of data collected at the rain stations which is compared with historical rainfall data. The Forage Program is a rainfall derivative program which means claims are adjusted for individual farmers based on rainfall received at the selected rain station as compared to historical rainfall data.
• Seymour rain station was established in 2004 and Percy rain station was added in 2005.
• Rainfall is an important component of forage production, however, weather conditions during the non insured period (September 1, through April 30) affects yield as does the species mix and the timing of rainfall as well as the intensity of grazing and cutting.
• Under the forage plan, the only insured peril is drought.
• The rain stations are maintained by the Ontario Weather Network, a company that specializes in collecting weather data. The rain stations where data for the plan is recorded, are equipped with mechanisms that record rain fall using three different methods, therefore back-up is available should one of the three mechanisms fail.
• The insured period runs from May 1 to August 31 each year. Rainfall data is collected during this time.
• Customers choose the rain station where data is recorded that will be used in determining their claims. Customers can obtain guidance about selecting a rain station from the Agricorp Call Centre.
• Customers are visited by an Agricorp Field Staff Representative when they initially sign up for forage insurance. The Field Staff Representative provides customers with a map that indicates the location of rain stations that they may choose from.
• The plan is funded by the federal and provincial governments. Agricorp does not have the authority to make changes to the plan withput seeking approval of its government partners to do so.
• Mr. and Ms. Glover purchased forage insurance for the first time in 2004. In 2004 Mr. and Ms. Glover chose Seymour station. In 2005 they chose the Percy station.
• As submitted in Agricorp’s document brief (Exhibit #2), the amount of coverage selected and the rainfall station chosen are indicated on the Application for Forage Rainfall Plan.
• A Renewal Notice is sent to customers each year. A sample Renewal Notice is included in Agricorp’s document brief (found in Exhibit #2). It indicates number of acres of forage insured and the amount of coverage chosen.
• An explanation of how the plan works is found in the Rainfall Plan Factsheet, however, it is not distributed with the Renewal Notice on an annual basis.
• The historical rainfall data used in calculating a claim is based on the records from Environment Canada for the period 35 years prior to the year for which the customer is insured.
• If Mr. Glover had chosen the Seymour station he would have been paid a claim in 2005.
• The way a claim is calculated is the collected rainfall data is added up for the insured period and if the collected rainfall is less than 80% of the historical rainfall then a claim is paid on the difference between the actual rainfall and 80% of the historical rainfall.
• Claims are typically processed about one month after all the data is collected and that is typically in the September to October timeframe.
• In 2005 the area where Mr. and Ms. Glover’s farm is located was very dry in the months of May and June while conditions improved from mid July through August.
• In all the rain stations noted in the Exhibit #2 materials the 2005 recorded rainfall was less than the historical rainfall.
• In 2005 Agricorp installed 125 new rain stations. One hundred ninety-two customers in the forage plan were sent letters which indicated that new rain stations were available in the townships in which they lived, however customers in adjacent townships to the townships with new rain stations were not notified of the instalment of new rain stations. A copy of the letter dated April 12, 2005 is contained in Agricorp’s document brief (Exhibit #2). In addition, some other customers did not receive notification that the location of certain rain stations had changed.
• Agricorp reviewed its administration of the forage plan for 2005 and found that it had failed to communicate to all customers that they had the option to choose a different rain station each year.
• Agricorp determined that it had not fulfilled its information disclosure obligation to all its customers.
• Agricorp decided that the remedy for the error was to give the uninformed or misinformed customers the benefit of the doubt and to re-adjust claims to the rain station paying the highest claim for those customers who had not been sent the letter advising of the opportunity to change to a new rain station or who were not new forage customers in 2005.
• Agricorp determined that customers who changed rain stations must have received the April 12, 2005 letter advising that they contact Agricorp to find out about new rain stations, and new customers had visits from Agricorp Field Staff who informed them of the complete list of rain stations available for their selection.
• Agricorp informed customers by way of letter dated December 20, 2005 (found in Exhibit #2) that it had decided to correct the error in communicating new rain stations by re-adjusting the claims of customers who did not change stations in 2005 or who were new customers in 2005.
• Agricorp sent a letter dated January 23, 2006 explaining its rationale for not re-adjusting their claims. Mr. Glover received the January 23, 2006 letter.
• As stated in the January 23, 2006 letter contained in Agricorp’s document brief, 910 customers had their claims re-adjusted. Approximately 450 customers had claims that were not re-adjusted to the highest claim paying stations.
• Mr. Glover made application to the Agricorp Issues Review Committee. After reviewing Mr. and Ms. Glover’s claim and the circumstances particular to their contract under the plan, Agricorp determined that Mr. and Ms. Glover had been treated fairly and that Agricorp had fulfilled its obligation to them under the contract.

Mr. Borho responded to questions. He stated that:

• He had not prepared any statistics with respect to the number of customers who were assigned to Percy station in 2005 whose claims were re-adjusted based on a higher payment of claim from an adjacent rain station.
• In 2005 rain fell too late to increase forage yields, however, pasture lands benefited from the rainfall.
• He agrees with the recommended critical harvest dates for forage.
• Rainfall volumes are capped at certain levels as a means of disregarding excessive amounts of precipitation that have no or possibly detrimental effects on the yield.
• Although it did not accompany the 2005 Renewal Notice, the 2005 Forage Rainfall Plan Factsheet is widely available to forage customers. Copies can be obtained upon request, at time of initial purchase of forage insurance and at industry trade shows.
• He agreed with Mr. Glover that the rainfall data in Exhibit #2 for the Percy rain station was inconsistent with the rainfall data on Glover’s 2005 Forage Rainfall Yield Report (in Exhibit #1) in that the Yield Reports shows June, July, August and the total as capped values. Mr. Borho was unable to explain the discrepancy in the Agricorp rainfall data for the Percy rain station.
• Customers had the option of choosing a rain station that was located in their township or any adjacent township.
• In correcting the communication error with customers that new rain stations were available, Agricorp decided to give customers the benefit of doubt and to re-assign them to rain stations that paid the highest claim.
• Agricorp became aware that an error was made as a result of a complaint from a customer who stated that a new rain station was located across the road from his farm. The customer complained that he was not informed by Agricrop that the new rain station had been installed across the road from his farm and that he had the option of choosing it.
• Forage customers were dissatisfied with the lack of notification about new rain stations, not the lack of rain fall in 2005.
• Agricorp based its decision to re-adjust claims in consideration of customers who had not been informed of new rain stations available to them.
• Agricorp made the decision to re-assign customers in order to fulfill its obligations under the contract of insurance to fully inform customers of the rainfall station options so the customers could make an informed decision about which rainfall station best represented their farm.
• There was no method of determining for certain, which rain station a customer would have chosen if he/she had been informed of all options, therefore, it was decided that the only fair approach is to assign them to the station that would have paid the highest claim.
• Rainfall data from two years previous and the Forage Rainfall Plan Factsheet are available on Agricorp’s website.
• Agricorp’s authority to re-assign customers can be found in Section G and Section I of the Forage Rainfall Plan Insuring Agreement as submitted in Agricorp’s document brief.
• Agricorp’s belief was the approach it took with those customers that it gave the benefit of the doubt to in respect of the 2005 crop year was a decision related to the adjustment of claims and not any revision or alteration to the insurance contract.
• The Renewal Notice contains an advisement to customers to contact Agricorp if they wish to change their coverage level, however, Agricorp acknowledges that this message does not convey any information with respect to changing rain stations.
• If Mr. Glover had chosen Seymour station in 2005, he would have received a payment on claim.
• Customers who did not respond to Agricorp’s April 12, 2005 letter would have been rewarded for not responding as advised.
• Agricorp sought to clarify how it had determined the claim re-adjustments in its January 23, 2006 letter to customers.

Summations

In summation, Mr. Glover requested that the Tribunal adjust his claim based on the data recorded at the Seymour rain station. He argued that it was the highest paying station that he could have chosen from. Mr. Glover told the Tribunal that the rain fall data recorded at the Seymour station was most indicative of the rain that fell at his farm in 2005. Mr. Glover argued that he was not convinced that Agricorp decided to re-adjust claims based on the complaint of a single farmer who had not been informed of a new rain station.

Ms. Givens stated in summation, that the single insured peril under the forage plan is drought and rainfall is the only criteria under the plan. She reminded the Tribunal that the rainfall data is collected by a company that specializes in weather monitoring. Ms. Givens referred the Tribunal to Section B of the Forage Rainfall Plan Insuring Agreement which sets out the terms of the contract for forage. She referred to Sections G, H and J of the Forage Rainfall Plan Insuring Agreement which contained the provisions for: selection by customers of rain stations, the collection of rainfall data and description of the calculation of the claim based on drought, the insured peril, respectively.

Ms. Givens stated that Section 24 of Ontario Regulation 380/97 (the Regulation) to the Crop Insurance Act, confers upon Agricorp the authority to make adjustments to claims as it did in 2005. Ms. Givens said that there is no provision in the Forage Rainfall Plan Insuring Agreement or the Regulation that prohibits Agricorp from adjusting forage claims in the manner in which it did so in 2005. She told the Tribunal that under Section 24 of the Regulation, Agricorp exercised its discretion in determining how claims were adjusted in 2005. She submitted that it was within Agricorp’s claim adjustment discretion to look at the insufficient communication to certain customers and use that as a basis to alter how those claims were adjusted. She stated that because those certain customers were not given the choice, instead Agricorp gave them the benefit of any doubt.

Ms. Givens reminded the Tribunal that Mr. Borho had testified that 192 customers were informed of the installation of new rain stations in their townships. She said that customers who changed rain stations and customers who were new to the plan in 2005 were considered to be aware of the location of rain stations from which they could choose. She stated that Agricorp re-assigned customers to the highest paying rain stations if there was any doubt that they were informed of new rain stations. Ms. Givens summarized Mr. Borho’s testimony stating that the 2005 Forage Rainfall Plan Factsheet was not mailed to customers with their Renewal Notices, however, it was available on the Agricorp website. She stated that Mr. Borho became aware of the miscommunication with regard to new rain stations, when a customer complained of not being told about a new rain station located across the road from his farm.

Ms. Givens reminded the Tribunal that Mr. Glover had received the notice and had chosen the rain station closest to his farm. She stated that though the system is not perfect the equipment used to measure rain fall is very accurate and that the rain station chosen by Mr. Glover generally indicated the conditions at his farm. She argued that Mr. Glover had accepted the contract of insurance and that Agricorp had no authority to change the contract. She reminded the Tribunal that it should consider only Mr. Glover’s appeal; customers who were paid claims in 2005 were not parties to the appeal. Ms. Givens asked the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.

Mr. Glover replied to Ms. Givens summation stating that a factsheet on forage production was available in years prior to 2005.

The Findings

The Tribunal found both Mr. Glover and Mr. Borho to be forthright and straightforward in their evidence. This is not a case where any issue of credibility requires that this Tribunal prefer the evidence of one witness over another on any particular point.

Agricorp candidly acknowledged that during 2005 it was responsible for failing to fully inform certain of its forage crop insurance customers of their options under the insurance plan. In order to address that failing it adopted a liberal claims adjustment process for those certain customers who were not fully informed of their options.

The Tribunal accepts that those actions by Agricorp were within its claims adjustment discretion as provided for in O.Reg 380/97 made under the Crop Insurance Act.

The evidence of Mr. Glover was that he received the April 12, 2005 letter from Agricorp advising of a new rainfall station in the vicinity of his farm. The evidence of Mr. Glover was that he called the Agricorp Call Centre after receiving that letter. During cross-examination by Ms. Givens Mr. Glover testified that the Agricorp Call Centre representative advised him to select the rainfall station closest to his farm. All of that evidence was not challenged nor contradicted.

The Tribunal finds that Mr. Glover based his decision to change from the Seymour rainfall station to the Percy rainfall station, at least in part, on that Agricorp advice.

The Tribunal also finds that although the advice he received from the Agricorp Call Centre to select the rainfall station closest to his farm may have seemed logical and reasonable it did not fully inform Mr. Glover that he had a range of possible rainfall station sites both within his township and in the adjacent township. In that respect we find that Mr. Glover was not fully informed of his options to select a rainfall station and to change that selection from year to year at the time of renewal.

The evidence of Mr. Borho during cross-examination by Mr. Glover brought to the Tribunal’s attention an unexplained discrepancy in the rainfall data from the Percy rainfall station. That unexplained discrepancy leaves the Tribunal with real concerns about the reliability of Agricorp’s handling of the rainfall data from the Percy rainfall station.

The Tribunal finds that the remedy to address Agricorp’s failure to fully inform Mr. Glover of his rainfall station selection options when he contacted the Agricorp Call Centre in April 2005 is to give him the same benefit of the doubt Agricorp extended to other customers in 2005 in similar circumstances.

Decision and Reasons

After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions made, the Tribunal decided to grant the appeal of Denise and Robert Glover.

The reasons for this decision are:

1. Agricorp’s belief was the approach it took with those customers that it gave the benefit of the doubt to in respect of the 2005 crop year was a decision related to the adjustment of claims and not any revision or alteration to the insurance contract.
2. It is within Agricorp’s claim adjustment discretion to look at the insufficient communication to certain customers and this can be used as a basis to alter how those claims are adjusted.
3. The unchallenged evidence of Mr. Glover was that an Agricorp representative at the Call Centre advised him to select the rain station closest to his farm. This was incomplete advice which did not provide him with all his options.
4. Agricorp was unable to explain the discrepancy in the Agricorp rainfall data for the Percy rain station.

ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

For the reasons noted herein Agricorp is directed to adjust the Glover 2005 Forage Insurance Claim using the Seymour rainfall station.

DATED AT Guelph, Ontario this 23^rd day of August, 2006.