OAFRAAT 2009

Assessed landowners requested a review of a Tribunal decision regarding a municipal drain, arguing that a 1984 tile drainage map constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the map was available at the time of the original hearing and the requesters failed to present it or cross-examine the original appellant.

The Tribunal concluded there was no basis to order a review.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) requested a review of a Tribunal decision that granted a dairy farmer a 50% exemption from a milk quota transfer assessment following his career-ending injury.

DFO argued the Tribunal made material errors of law or fact by allegedly finding DFO was obliged to negotiate with the farmer and by making conflicting findings.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the original panel did not impose a duty to negotiate on DFO, and that its findings regarding the farmer's catastrophic injury and the appreciation of his quota value were complementary rather than conflicting.

The appellant, owner of a meat processing plant, requested a review of a Tribunal decision that upheld a Director's five-day licence suspension for failing to keep daily records of the plant's water disinfection system.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by relying on the Ministry's evidence over his own.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the original decision was based on credible evidence from the Ministry's witnesses, including an expert, which refuted the appellant's claims.

The appellant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for compensation for tractor transmission repairs.

The appellant argued that the original repair by the respondent was faulty, leading to a breakdown three years later.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the respondent's 12-month workmanship warranty had long expired by the time the transmission failed, and therefore the respondent was not liable.

The applicant requested a review of a 2003 Tribunal decision regarding the Foster Municipal Drain, alleging significant new evidence.

The Tribunal found that the evidence relied upon was not new and had been considered in the original decision.

The request for review was denied due to the lack of new evidence and the nearly six-year delay in filing the request.

The operator of a meat plant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that upheld a Director's compliance order requiring the installation of a water sampling tap at a specific location.

The operator argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly analyze his arguments and that a new environmental report constituted significant new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no error of law in the original decision and concluding that the environmental report was merely an opinion document that could have been obtained prior to the original appeal.

Three landowners requested a review of a Tribunal decision regarding the Coleman Municipal Drain.

They alleged significant new evidence, material errors of fact and law, bias, and unfair cost allocation.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the new evidence was available at the original hearing, no errors of fact or law were made, the bias allegations were unsupported, and the cost allocation was a valid exercise of discretion.

The appellant, an unincorporated association of dairy farmers, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) not to rescind its November 2006 Quota Policy on Transfer Assessments.

The appellant argued the policy was flawed and requested rescission along with over $15 million in compensation for its members.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant individual compensation as it was not requested before the DFO.

On the merits, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the Ontario dairy industry was overcapitalized and that the policy successfully stabilized quota values.

The Tribunal concluded the positive impacts of the policy on the industry outweighed the negative impacts on the appellant's members, and dismissed the appeal.

The Ministry of Transportation petitioned for drainage works to alleviate flooding on Highway No. 93.

The engineer apportioned the estimated costs among lands in the watershed, assessing the appellants for outlet liability.

The appellants appealed the assessments, arguing they were too high, questioning the need for the works, and claiming exemptions as riparian owners.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the need for the works and found no exemption for riparian owners under the Drainage Act.

However, applying the Todgham assessment method, the Tribunal found the assessments unfair because the engineer used a runoff factor of 1.0 for the appellants' hilly bush lands.

The Tribunal reduced the runoff factor to 0.7, lowering the appellants' assessments and correspondingly increasing the assessment for Highway No. 93, which received the most significant benefit.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario denying his request for an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of his milk quota.

The appellant argued he had planned an orderly exit from the industry prior to the implementation of the assessment policy and raised medical grounds not previously submitted to the board.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the new medical evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, concluding the appellant did not experience undue hardship and his exit from the industry was not imminent when the policy was implemented.

The appellants, an unincorporated association of dairy producers and three individuals, brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of their appeal of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's 2009 quota policies.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and sought costs, arguing the appellants had failed to comply with a prior procedural order.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment pending the release of a decision in a related appeal concerning the 2006 policies, finding that the outcome of that appeal could significantly impact the present matter.

However, the Tribunal imposed strict conditions on the appellants to proceed promptly once the 2006 decision is released.

The Tribunal declined to award costs against the appellants, noting that costs are rarely awarded in public administrative hearings and the respondent's preparation efforts would not be wasted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding his assessment for the Greisbach Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued his assessment of approximately 75% of the total cost was unfair, as upstream landowners needed the drain more and his property did not experience flooding.

The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the new tile drain was to convey surface water from the road and upstream lands.

The Tribunal adjusted the benefit/outlet assessment split from 75%/25% to 60%/40% and reduced the appellant's total assessment from $21,618 to $13,450, redistributing the costs to the upstream landowners and the municipality.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drainage works under section 64 of the Drainage Act, citing soil erosion and substandard construction.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to address the outstanding repair issues.

The Tribunal formalized the settlement and dismissed the municipality's request for costs against the appellant, finding that both parties shared responsibility for the communication breakdown that necessitated the hearing.

The applicant farm equipment dealer brought a motion for production and discovery against a non-party trade association, seeking confidential market share data to challenge the respondent manufacturer's termination of their dealership agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the requested data was protected by the common law privilege of confidentiality and the applicant failed to establish the relevance and importance of the documents.

The Tribunal also refused leave to examine the non-party for discovery, noting it would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant was ordered to pay the non-party's costs of the motion.

Sharalea Farms Inc. appealed to the Tribunal regarding alleged defects in a Case IH tractor, a Case IH loader, and a Hardi sprayer purchased from Vandenbrink Farm Equipment.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear disputes involving used farm implements and contractual warranties under the Farm Implements Act.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the tractor and loader, finding that the alleged defects either arose after the applicable statutory and contractual warranties had expired or were not proven to be defects.

However, the Tribunal found that several defects in the sprayer were reported during the contractual warranty period and ordered the dealer to repair or replace the defective components.

The appellant, a dairy farmer, suffered a catastrophic injury in a farming accident and was forced to sell his entire milk quota.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) applied a 15% transfer assessment to the sale and denied his request for an exemption under the extraordinary circumstances policy.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the DFO's exemption policy lacked clear criteria and criticized its inconsistent and confidential handling of exemption requests.

Recognizing the appellant's extraordinary circumstances but also the significant appreciation in his quota value over 28 years, the Tribunal partially granted the appeal and ordered the DFO to refund half of the withheld assessment amount.

The Township of Southwold applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on the Talbotville Municipal Drain under section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that changes in land use, including major developments and the construction of a new drain that diverted lands, justified the variation.

The application was granted.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding appeals of a decision by the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission.

The Tribunal addressed preliminary matters, including the disclosure of prior involvement by two Vice Chairs, to which no parties objected.

The Tribunal established procedural rules for the admission of documents from the Commission record and ordered the consolidation of appeals by three appellants.

The Tribunal also set the order of presentation for the hearing, granted intervenor status to De Wetering Hill Farms, and established a schedule for the exchange of documents, expert reports, and future hearing dates.

The appellant farmer appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his crop insurance claim for 57 acres of processing peas.

The crop was rejected by the processor due to a heavy infestation of nightshade weed.

The appellant argued the weed growth was caused by excessive rainfall, an insured peril, which leached the applied herbicide.

Agricorp maintained the loss was due to inadequate weed control, an uninsured peril.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious signs of water damage to the crop and concluding that the appellant failed to implement adequate weed management practices to control the known nightshade issue.

On a motion within an appeal from dairy quota policy changes, the Tribunal held that an appeal from the respondent board's new quota policies triggered the automatic stay under s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the Tribunal found a serious issue, irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay remained wholly in place, and a balance of inconvenience favouring the respondent board.

The Tribunal nevertheless held that statutory stays should be lifted cautiously and that the original stay had suspended the new policies in their entirety.

It limited the stay so that only producer members of the appellant organization as of the launch date of the appeal remained subject to the old 2006 policies pending the appeal.