OAFRAAT 2010

The appellant farm corporation requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied its request for an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's 15% quota transfer assessment.

The appellant had sold its quota after one of its joint operators was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made material errors of law and fact by misapplying previous exemption cases and by not hearing certain medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no material error of law or fact that would likely have led to a different decision.

The requesters sought a review of a Tribunal decision regarding the Holland Marsh Drainage System Canal Improvement Project, arguing that the Tribunal disregarded evidence concerning compensation for their land, immature tree crop, and fill removal, as well as the method for relocating a berm.

The Chair of the Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the requesters had not brought forward any significant new evidence and that the Tribunal had not made any material errors of law or fact.

The original decision was found to be sound and based on credible expert evidence.

The moving party requested a stay of point #3 of the Tribunal's November 8, 2010 decision regarding a drainage works project, pending a review of that decision.

The Tribunal granted the stay to avoid unnecessary costs being added to the drainage works while the request for review is under consideration, finding that no party would be prejudiced by the stay.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed certain 2005 and 2009 policies of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the portion of the appeal relating to the 2005 policies, arguing the appellant had known of them for more than a year and was not aggrieved by them.

The Tribunal granted the motion, exercising its discretion under s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act to refuse to hear the appeal of the 2005 policies.

The Tribunal noted the policies were developed through a negotiated process, the industry had relied on them for four years, and the requested change to open contracting would fundamentally alter the assurance of supply system.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report for the Mindemoya Drain and Yonge Street Reconstruction project under the Drainage Act.

One appellant withdrew due to health reasons.

The remaining two appellants challenged the adequacy of allowances for loss of access, the location of maintenance easements, and the handling of excavated soil and trees on their properties.

The Tribunal ordered amendments to the report, including relocating a maintenance easement, increasing allowances for loss of access and tree removal, requiring specific soil handling procedures, and protecting sinkholes as part of the drainage works.

The Tribunal also ordered the removal of certain watershed areas from the assessment schedule.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act, seeking to redirect proposed drainage away from his property to a North Drain, remove his property from the drainage area, and eliminate his assessments.

The Tribunal heard competing expert engineering evidence regarding natural surface water flow and project costs.

The Tribunal accepted the municipal engineer's conclusion that natural overland flow is predominantly from northeast to southwest and that the proposed Drain A option was the most practical solution.

The Tribunal found the appellant's assessments for benefit and outlet to be fair and equitable.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant, a chicken farmer, appealed a regulation passed by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario that imposed a moratorium on approving marketing contracts with out-of-province processors.

The appellant requested a pre-hearing conference to determine whether his appeal automatically stayed the regulation.

The Tribunal held that while the appeal operates as a stay of the matter under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, it does not automatically suspend validly enacted legislation.

Since the appellant conceded an individual exemption would not benefit him, the Tribunal declined to limit or define the scope of the stay and ordered the exchange of issues statements.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the construction of a new municipal tile drain on their property.

They sought to have the drain diverted to a different watershed, requested changes to the drain's design, argued for increased allowances for land and crop damages, and sought a reduction in their drainage assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence that the design was appropriate for the historical watershed, the allowances were fair and equitable, and the assessment methodology conformed with the Drainage Act.

The appellant, a chicken producer, experienced high bird mortality due to extreme weather conditions, resulting in an undermarketing of 12,783 kgs. of chicken.

Under the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's Quota Policy 170-2005, he was permitted to re-grow up to 10% of his quota allocation (6,684 kgs.).

He appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal seeking relief to re-grow the remaining 6,099 kgs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the undermarketing policy was a fault-free entitlement designed to address factors like weather, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the weather event was truly unique and exceptional to warrant an exemption beyond the policy.

The Township of Norwich applied to the Tribunal under Section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to modify the Engineer's Report on the Ross Drain 2004.

The modifications were required due to additional tile replacement work and associated costs not included in the original report.

The Tribunal ordered the Municipality to adopt the Engineer's Addendum, directed a Court of Revision for assessment appeals, and held that accrued interest charges and engineering fees for the hearing should be borne by the Municipality and the Engineer, not the assessed landowners, due to delays and unauthorized work.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Miller Drainage Works 1969.

The appellant sought to have the open channel of the drain on his property enclosed, as originally proposed in the Engineer's preliminary report.

The Tribunal found that the municipal council exceeded its jurisdiction by exerting undue influence on the Engineer to change the report's recommendations from a drain enclosure to an access culvert, and that the Engineer failed to exercise independent judgment.

The Tribunal set aside the Report and ordered the municipality to appoint a new Engineer to prepare a final report for the enclosure of the drain.

The appellant appealed his drainage assessment under the Drainage Act, arguing that his reforestation efforts significantly reduced surface water runoff from his property, rendering the drain of no benefit to him.

The Tribunal accepted that reforestation reduces runoff but noted the engineer had already applied a 50% reduction to the appellant's assessment to account for this.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessments were upheld.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the installation and assessment of a new residential access culvert over a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the municipality had improperly installed a previous culvert in 1996 and that the municipality should bear the entire cost of the new culvert.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's decision in 1995 to use a 'letter of sizing' instead of a proper Engineer's Report contributed to the dispute.

The Tribunal ordered the relocation of a hydro pole guy wire to be included in the works, dismissed requests to extend the driveway and amend lot references, and reapportioned the $13,400 estimated cost of the works, assessing $7,900 to the appellants and $5,500 to the municipality.

Dougal Lea Ltd. requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied its request for an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's 15% quota transfer assessment.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made material errors of fact and law by misapplying previous exemption cases and making factual determinations after allegedly discouraging personal medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair found no material error of law, noting that previous Tribunal decisions do not create binding legal principles for compassionate exemptions, which are fact-driven.

The Vice-Chair also found no material error of fact, as the original panel properly distinguished the appellant's circumstances from previous cases.

The request for review was denied.

The appellants appealed their assessments under the Engineer's Report for the Dowdall Municipal Drain.

They argued that the municipality should be 100% responsible for the costs of two sections of the drain due to the construction of a road culvert and past illegal reconstruction.

The Tribunal found that the improvements provided benefits beyond the road culvert and that the construction costs were fairly assessed to upstream landowners.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

After making numerous unsuccessful adjournment requests and failing to follow procedural orders, the appellant and his counsel boycotted the scheduled appeal hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment motion and the appeal due to the appellant's failure to attend and adduce evidence.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in costs against the appellant for unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, noting the multiple delay tactics and disrespect for the Tribunal's processes.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the Thorpe-Ellis Municipal Drain, arguing that his outlet assessment was too high because a portion of his land drained into a different drain.

The Tribunal found a minor discrepancy of 3.4 acres in the calculated drainage area.

To ensure the total assessed area did not exceed the appellant's total land ownership, the Tribunal ordered a $130.00 reduction in the appellant's assessment, adding the amount to the municipality's road assessment.

The Tribunal also ordered revisions to the Assessment Schedule and the rescission of the provisional by-law until the schedule was updated.

Landowners appealed the quality of construction of the Hambly Sabourin & Beaulac-Beach Municipal Drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the contractor deviated from the intended access route, causing damage to Sylvain Gauthier's property, and awarded him $500.

For Garry Beach, the Tribunal ordered the re-construction of a removed property line fence, directed the Engineer to inspect and repair channel rip-rap, and awarded $800 for crop loss due to delayed construction of a culvert crossing.

Other claims regarding drain maintenance, internal fences, and culvert placement were dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken producer, brought a motion for a stay of Chicken Farmers of Ontario Regulation 2274-2009 and Policy 175-2009 pending his appeal.

The regulation imposed a moratorium on new processing contracts with out-of-province processors.

The appellant argued his circumstances had changed because his Ontario processor cancelled his contract, and he wished to consolidate production with his Quebec processor.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that a stay is intended to preserve the status quo, which had not changed since the appellant would still sell 80% of his production to an Ontario processor and 20% to a Quebec processor.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction over the policy as the appellant had not first sought an exemption from the respondent.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the VanBuuren Municipal Drain Branch 'A'.

The appellants argued for an alternative drain design and that the municipality should bear a larger portion of the costs due to its past inaction on drainage issues during lot severances.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the alternative design was not feasible and that the assessments were calculated in compliance with the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied.