OAFRAAT 2008

The County of Elgin appealed a decision of the Court of Revision that reallocated a $2,000 benefit assessment for the Richmond Outlet Drain from a private landowner to the County.

At the hearing, all parties, including the assessed landowner, agreed to withdraw the Court of Revision appeal and accept the original Engineer's Report assessments.

The Tribunal granted the appeal and ordered the original schedule of assessments restored.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) requested a review of a Tribunal decision, alleging that a panel member had a conflict of interest because he was an active dairy farmer whose corporation had been subject to regulatory action by the DFO.

The DFO also alleged the Tribunal erred in finding an unwritten policy regarding exemptions.

The Tribunal found sufficient merit in the conflict of interest allegations to warrant a review, despite the DFO's delay in raising the issue.

The request for review was granted in part, limited to the conflict of interest issue, to be heard by a different panel.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Winger Road Municipal Drain.

The appellants challenged the location of the drain and the assessments levied against their properties.

The Tribunal upheld the location of the drain as recommended in the engineer's report, finding it maintained a balance of shared responsibility and minimized effects on all properties.

However, the Tribunal ordered adjustments to the benefit assessments to provide a more equitable distribution, decreasing the assessments for downstream properties and increasing the assessment for the upstream property that gained significant outlet benefit.

The Tribunal also ordered modifications to the drain design to protect mature trees and provide buffer protection on the south side of the ditch.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding his crop insurance claims for Red Spring Wheat and Soybeans following a season with excessive rainfall and severe weed conditions.

Agricorp had offered a reduced payout for the wheat based on comparative yields and denied the soybean claim entirely due to crop abandonment and destruction of evidence.

The Tribunal found that while excessive rainfall was an insurable peril, the appellant's losses were largely due to uninsurable factors including poor farm management and weed pressure.

The Tribunal upheld Agricorp's calculation for the wheat loss and dismissed the soybean claim.

The appellant filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The Township of Ramara decided not to proceed with the petition, basing its decision on comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority regarding an engineering report rather than the petition itself.

The Tribunal found that the Township considered extraneous and irrelevant factors not permitted under section 4 of the Act.

The Tribunal overturned the Township's decision and directed the drainage petition to proceed, noting that the appellant was denied due process.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the proposed Elphick Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that no drainage problem existed and that the costs outweighed any benefits.

The Tribunal found that a valid drainage problem existed in the Elphicks' back yard but ordered the proposed drain to be truncated to reduce costs while still providing a sufficient legal outlet.

A majority of the Tribunal also revised the benefit assessments, finding that the Elphick property would be the greater beneficiary of the works.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant, a chicken processing company, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) imposing a supply utilization penalty of $9,548.16.

The penalty arose after the appellant acquired the entire calculated base of another processor without inquiring about potential liabilities.

The Tribunal upheld the CFO's decision, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and that the penalty was imposed in accordance with the CFO's governing laws and policies.

Several landowners and the Township of South-West Oxford requested an extension of time under section 100 of the Drainage Act to appeal the quality of construction of the Clear Creek Drain.

The Tribunal found genuine dissatisfaction with the construction quality based on the provided documentation.

The Tribunal granted the extension, allowing the parties 40 working days to file their appeal under section 64 of the Act.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion requesting the Tribunal review and set aside its previous decision regarding an appeal by John and Susanna Cayer.

The DFO argued that one of the panel members, an active dairy farmer with a regulatory history with the DFO, had a conflict of interest and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by failing to disclose his status at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the member's failure to disclose his business relationship with the DFO violated the Members' Code of Professional Conduct and could reasonably bring the public's confidence in the Tribunal's impartiality into question.

The original decision was set aside and a new panel was assigned to rehear the matter.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding improvements to a municipal drain.

One set of appellants argued the works would lower the groundwater and dry up their well, while another appellant objected to the location of the works, the removal of trees and a fence, and the cost assessment.

The Tribunal accepted expert hydrogeological evidence that the drain works were downstream of the well's recharge area and would not affect the water supply.

The Tribunal also upheld the proposed location of the drain works but found the cost assessment against one appellant for ditching was excessive and ordered it reduced.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.

The Tribunal issued an addendum to its previous decision regarding the Bruce Municipal Drain No. 19 to clarify several orders.

The engineer and the appellant sought clarification on buffer strips, assessments for specific roll numbers, land value of a licensed landfill site, and farm lane crossings.

The Tribunal amended its orders to specify 6-metre buffer strips, adjust equivalent hectares for certain lots, increase the assessment factor for the landfill site, use a 1.0 factor for Section 29 allowances, and allow the appellant to construct two 11-metre farm lane crossings at his own expense.

The Tribunal re-determined an appeal regarding a crop insurance claim adjustment after the Superior Court of Justice remitted the matter back.

The issue was whether Agricorp mailed a letter notifying the appellant of an option to change rain stations.

Based on the evidence, including Agricorp's failure to produce the individual who mailed the letter or electronic confirmation, the Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the letter was not mailed.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant be treated in the same manner as other insured persons who were not informed of the new rain stations.

The appellant, acting as an agent for homeowners in a residential subdivision, appealed an engineer's report concerning the proposed Hauser Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the appellant acted as a valid agent for the homeowners.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the engineer's report failed to adequately address a specific drainage issue between two lots, did not clearly define the watershed area, and improperly assessed costs against the appellant rather than the registered landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the report returned to the engineer for revisions to correct these deficiencies.

Appellants appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the Bearss Drain West Branch West in the City of Port Colborne.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works (option 1) were not the most suitable solution and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that the engineer applied sound engineering principles in recommending option 1 and that the assessments were fair and equitable, with the exception of one appellant whose land use was reclassified as a managed forest.

The appeals were largely denied, with minor modifications ordered to the report and construction methodology.

The township requested a review of a tribunal decision allocating equally between two municipalities the costs related to deletion of a branch of a drainage project.

Applying Rule 29.09 of its Rules of Procedure, the tribunal held that review requires significant new evidence or a material error of law or fact likely to have changed the result.

The request relied only on fairness arguments about whether the original petitioner should have borne those costs.

The tribunal found it had already considered fairness and the relevant circumstances, including municipal maintenance failures, and denied the request for a formal review.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his claim for his 2006 white kidney bean crop.

Agricorp argued the appellant breached his crop insurance contract by failing to harvest the crop, attributing the loss to inadequate farm practices rather than an insured peril.

The Tribunal found that the appellant used good farm management practices and that excessive rain and wet field conditions made harvesting impractical.

The Tribunal concluded that the excess rain constituted an insurable peril and ordered Agricorp to pay the full value of the claim.