OAFRAAT 2007

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Moore Drain.

The report recommended incorporating existing storm sewers into the municipal drain and assessed the appellants for the costs of oversizing and extending the drain previously constructed by a neighbouring developer.

The appellants argued the assessment was unfair and the municipality was deviating from the Act.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding that the engineer employed sound engineering principles in calculating the assessments, the municipality did not deviate from section 31 of the Act, and the appellants provided no expert evidence to refute the engineer's calculations.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report regarding the replacement of a bridge on a municipal drain, arguing that his 50% assessment of the $15,000 cost was excessive and should be reduced to $500.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that a 50/50 split between the landowner and upstream lands/roads is a standard and equitable method for assessing bridge replacement costs.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment in the engineer's report was adopted.

Two landowners appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Bibeau-Pilon Drain.

One appellant sought compensation for tractor damage caused by a failed culvert and requested the cancellation of a proposed branch drain (Branch C).

The other appellant sought a reduction in his drainage assessment.

The Tribunal denied the claim for tractor damage because the appellant failed to provide the required statutory notice to the municipality.

The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of Branch C and the corresponding revision of assessments, as neither the requesting landowner nor the assessed landowner wanted it.

The appeal to reduce the second appellant's assessment was dismissed, as the Tribunal found the engineer's assessment to be fair and just.

The City of Port Colborne requested an order under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend the Engineer's Report for the Henry Municipal Drain.

The original report omitted a description of how final costs for special assessments to roads were to be determined.

The Tribunal found that the City conducted a fair process and that the amendment was necessary and in the best interest of the affected property owners.

The Tribunal ordered the City to amend the by-law to implement the Addendum Report.

The Township of Tehkummah appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of the Hierons Drain.

During construction, the engineer and contractor made unauthorized changes to the approved design, which resulted in flooding on an upstream property after an unusual rainstorm.

The Tribunal found that neither the engineer nor the contractor had the authority to alter the approved design without the Township's consent.

The Tribunal ordered remedial work to correct the unauthorized changes and directed the Township to bear the costs, as the engineer and contractor were acting as its servants.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, objecting to the proposed construction of a dam on his property.

The appellant argued the dam would cause flooding on the westerly portion of his land.

The respondent's expert drainage engineer testified that the dam was necessary to provide positive watershed separation and prevent water from jumping watersheds, which is required for proper assessment of drainage costs.

The Tribunal accepted the expert's evidence, finding the appellant presented no compelling evidence to refute it, and dismissed the appeal, ordering the engineer's report to be implemented as written.

Several residential property owners appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a swale and buffer strip to address flooding caused by agricultural runoff.

The appellants argued that the swale was unnecessary for their properties and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that the flooding was primarily caused by berms constructed by the residential landowners, which prevented water from flowing to the intended sideyard swales.

The Tribunal concluded that the engineer's report provided a good solution, dismissed the appeals, and confirmed the assessments.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Bruce Municipal Drain No. 19.

They challenged the assessments and design, particularly the increased costs associated with fish habitat accommodations required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the fish habitat design changes, finding the engineer was obliged to comply with federal law.

However, the Tribunal directed that the costs of the fish habitat study be assessed to the Municipality, not the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority.

The Tribunal granted the appellant Munro compensation for insufficient outlet and directed that the buffer strips be widened to 6 metres to accommodate excavated spoil.

The Tribunal also directed the engineer to recalculate the assessment for a municipal landfill site using an industrial land value rather than an agricultural one.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp denying a crop insurance claim for a 2006 winter wheat crop.

The appellant argued the yield loss was due to drought, an insured peril.

Agricorp argued there was no evidence of drought and that the appellant had failed to notify them of a change from conventional to organic farming practices.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of drought, noting high yields in the surrounding township, and dismissed the appeal on the basis that the loss was not caused by an insured peril.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Elliott Drain, arguing that the assessments against his property were unfair, the report was filed late, and the benefits were not commensurate with the costs.

The Tribunal found that the overflow channel was essential for high run-off events and that all landowners in the watershed would contribute water to it.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to rule on the late filing of the report and noted that the appellant's alternative proposals did not address his own situation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Milk Transport Association appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario regarding the payment formula for milk transporters.

The appellant challenged the DFO's unilateral reduction of the on-farm function time from eight to seven minutes and sought a 3.5 percent increase to the labour rate component instead of the 2.5 percent implemented by the DFO.

The Tribunal found that the payment formula was an agreement intended to be in place for at least five years and could not be unilaterally altered without substantive data.

The Tribunal ordered the on-farm function time reinstated to eight minutes but upheld the 2.5 percent labour rate increase as fair and equitable based on industry data.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Forsyth Drainage Works-Garden Avenue Branches.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement which involved revisions to the engineer's report.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to permit a late appeal under Section 48(1) of the Drainage Act to modify the report.

The Tribunal found the Minutes of Settlement to be a satisfactory resolution and ordered that the Revised Engineer's Report replace the original report in the provisional by-law.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and design of the Cedar Bank Municipal Drain 2006.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the design of the drainage project, finding the engineer's recommended alternative to be the most cost-effective solution for stabilizing the gully and road.

The Tribunal also dismissed appeals seeking reductions in benefit assessments for properties relying on the roads for access, as well as a vacant lot.

However, the Tribunal granted appeals to reduce the outlet assessments on two agricultural properties and increased the benefit assessment on one property whose existing culvert would be maintained by the project.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's denial of his crop insurance claim for yield losses on his 2006 soybean crop.

Agricorp had denied the claim on the basis of low yield relative to neighbours, failure to report damage during the growing season, and a high proportion of reseeds in the area.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible and concluded that the crop was damaged by excessive rainfall, an insured peril.

The Tribunal also accepted the appellant's estoppel argument, noting that Agricorp had paid claims in previous years following the same reporting process.

The appeal was granted and Agricorp was ordered to pay the claim based on the reported yield.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's decision to deny his claim for yield losses on his 2006 soybean crop.

Agricorp denied the claim on the basis that the appellant failed to report damage during the growing season and that the low yield was inconsistent with other growers in the area.

The Tribunal found that the crop was damaged by excessive rainfall, an insured peril, and that the appellant's reporting process was consistent with previous years where claims were paid.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's estoppel argument and ordered Agricorp to pay the claim based on the reported yield.

The appellant, a farming corporation, appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of a crop insurance claim for lima beans damaged by excessive rain.

The appellant argued that the claim should be based on 195 acres rather than 305 acres, claiming the processor erroneously reported the acreage of two separate but related farming entities under the appellant's single contract.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the onus is on the insured grower to verify the accuracy of the reported acreage, and the appellant failed to correct the error before the loss occurred.

The Township of Gordon applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the maintenance assessment on the McKay-Clover Hill Dairy Drain.

The original assessment was outdated due to land annexations and subdivisions.

The Town of Gore Bay, the only other affected municipality, supported the application.

The Tribunal found the statutory criteria were met and granted the Township permission to appoint an engineer.

The applicants requested an extension of time to appeal the quality of construction of a drainage work under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

They alleged property damage and loss of revenue resulting from drain cleaning contracted by the municipality.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had made ongoing attempts to resolve the issue with the municipality and were unaware of the appeal process.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time to file the appeal.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding a municipal drain.

They filed their appeal 17 days late, claiming they were unaware of the deadline.

The Tribunal found that the municipality had met all legislative notice requirements, including mailing notices to households, advertising in the newspaper, and clearly stating the 40-day appeal period.

The request for an extension of time was denied.

The applicant requested an extension of time to appeal an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the Burns Drain.

The applicant missed the 21-day deadline by seven days due to a death in the family.

Despite opposition from another landowner, the Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the death of a family member was a traumatic event that justified the delay under section 100 of the Drainage Act.