OAFRAAT 2007

The applicants requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding appeals from an engineer's report and the Court of Revision on the Saxon Drain.

The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of evidence from various witnesses and failed to consider a 2001 engineer's report.

The Tribunal found no indication that evidence was improperly scrutinized or that relevant information was ignored.

The request for review was denied and the original order was upheld.

The appellant, an abattoir operator, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency (OSMA) ordering the payment of outstanding licence fees and finance charges, along with fines and a potential licence suspension for non-payment.

The appellant argued that collecting fees from custom kill clients was difficult and would harm its business, suggesting that auction houses should collect the fees instead.

The Tribunal found that the appellant understood its obligations under OSMA regulations and that its failure to remit fees undermined the marketing system.

The Tribunal upheld the outstanding fees, finance charges, fines, and the conditional suspension of the sheep slaughtering licence.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Daniel McArthur Drain - East.

They argued that their property was assessed the largest portion of the cost despite not being eligible for agricultural grants, and objected to the proposed routing and the allowance for woodlot damage.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the assessments for outlet and benefit to be fair and just, the proposed route to be the most economical, and the allowance for woodlot damage to be adequate given the lack of contrary evidence.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a decision upholding somatic cell count (SCC) penalties imposed on their milk production for June, July, and August 2006.

They alleged that the official milk samples had been tampered with or improperly tested, and presented independent test results that differed from the official results.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of tampering or testing inaccuracies, noting that the independent samples had been frozen, which could alter SCC results.

The appeal was dismissed and the official SCC test results were confirmed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for a proposed municipal drain, arguing the design lacked a sufficient safety margin for flooding and would damage mature trees on their property line.

The Tribunal found the drain design was technically sound and adequate for a 100-year storm event.

While acknowledging the potential trauma to the trees, the Tribunal concluded the overall area would benefit from the drainage works and urged the municipality to address tree preservation and compensation in the subdivision agreement.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to minor modifications to the engineer's report regarding road elevations and maintenance.

The requesters sought a review of a Tribunal decision regarding appeals from the Court of Revision and the Engineer's Report on the Dykeman Pumping Works Drain.

The requesters raised several procedural and substantive issues, including the composition of the panel, notice of the hearing, the opportunity to present testimony, and the engineer's performance of duties.

The Tribunal found no material error of law or fact and concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant reconsideration.

The requests for review were denied.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments against his property for a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that the benefit assessment was unfair because his property was already adequately drained by a private system, and the proposed works primarily benefited upstream properties that discharged water onto his land.

The Tribunal found that the engineer did not fully consider the efficiency of the appellant's existing private drain and that the road and upstream lands contributed significantly to the water volume.

The Tribunal ordered a reduction in the benefit assessment on the appellant's property and corresponding increases to the outlet assessments of the road and upstream properties.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Branch 'A' Dennis Robertson Drain.

The appellant requested the relocation of an existing tile drain off his property and disputed the assessment of costs for this relocation.

The Tribunal found that the assessments made by the engineer were fair and reasonable, as the appellant was the sole beneficiary of the relocation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Revision to exempt the appellant's property from maintenance costs was confirmed.

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

They argued they did not receive a letter notifying them of a new rain station in their township, which would have allowed them to select a more favourable station.

Agricorp argued the letter was deemed received under the contract.

The Tribunal found that Agricorp had communication problems and failed to notify many growers.

Applying the deeming provision would be unfair.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to readjust the claim based on the rainfall data from the highest paying rain station the appellants could have selected.

The appellants filed a petition for drainage with the City of Welland under the Drainage Act due to flooding on their property.

The City failed to respond within the prescribed 30 days, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The City brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a registered subdivision agreement under the Planning Act governed the property's drainage and that Section 71 of the Planning Act prevailed in the event of a conflict.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no conflict between the specific provisions of the two Acts.

The Tribunal ordered the City to accept the petition and appoint an engineer to examine the area and prepare a report.