OAFRAAT 2011

L'appelant a contesté le rapport de l'ingénieur concernant la construction d'un drain municipal destiné à desservir une nouvelle subdivision.

Le Tribunal a conclu que le drain proposé répondait à la définition de travaux exécutés sur demande, mais a modifié le rapport pour accorder à l'appelant une indemnité pour les dommages causés par l'augmentation de la vitesse d'écoulement de l'eau sur sa propriété.

Le Tribunal a également révisé la répartition des coûts, attribuant la majorité des avantages statutaires et des coûts à la subdivision plutôt qu'à l'appelant.

The Director requested a review of the Tribunal's prior decision.

Following unsuccessful attempts to develop an agreed statement of facts, the responding party withdrew from participating in the review hearing.

The Tribunal issued a new procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of affidavit evidence and written submissions for the written review hearing, while preserving the responding party's right to participate should he reconsider.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal under the Drainage Act after the appellant failed to comply with procedural directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion but directed written submissions on costs.

The Tribunal found the appellant's failure to comply with the procedural directions to be unreasonable and ordered him to pay the City's costs of the motion in the amount of $7,080.70, to be credited to the drain account and added to the tax roll.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion to dismiss Alan Webster's appeal under the Drainage Act for failing to comply with a procedural order and for being frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant filed his particulars 22 days late.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's cavalier attitude toward the procedural order was worthy of censure, the appropriate remedy was costs rather than summary dismissal.

Applying the test for frivolous and vexatious proceedings, the Tribunal concluded by the slimmest of margins that the appeal was not obviously incapable of success or brought for an improper purpose.

The motion was dismissed, with costs reserved.

The Director requested a pre-hearing conference to argue a motion for summary judgment to revoke two orders made in a previous Tribunal decision regarding the return of seized livestock medicines and personal items.

The Tribunal held that it does not have the statutory authority or inherent jurisdiction to grant summary judgment, as its Rules of Procedure do not contain a provision analogous to Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Tribunal issued procedural directions for the review hearing to proceed in writing.

The Town of Lakeshore applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to correct an error in the engineer's report for the Smyth Drain West.

A discrepancy in the topographical survey resulted in unnecessary land allowances being calculated.

The Tribunal granted the application, ordering the correction of the report, the reduction of section 29 allowances, and the revision of the road shoulder specifications, with the consent of the affected landowners.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Weber-Brubacher Municipal Drain, seeking compensation for the removal of two cedar trees, increased allowances under sections 29 and 30 of the Drainage Act, and a reduction in their assessment.

The Tribunal found that the cedar trees constituted an obstruction to the drainage works under section 80 of the Act and therefore the appellants were not entitled to compensation for their removal.

The Tribunal also denied the request for increased allowances, noting that the right-of-way was established and paid for in 1973, and the Act does not provide compensation for construction inconvenience.

The Tribunal found the assessments to be fair and reasonable, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant, a second-generation farmer, appealed a decision of the provincial chicken regulator denying his request for 2,040 units of chicken quota or an exemption from the quota regulation.

The appellant argued he was entitled to the quota based on his father's historical production during the 1964-1965 qualifying period.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the 46-year delay in applying for quota, failed to prove qualifying production, and was not himself a chicken producer during the qualifying period.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an exemption, holding that the unaffordability of quota is not a valid basis to grant an exemption that would undermine the supply management system.

The Director requested a review of a Tribunal decision that ordered the return of, or compensation for, livestock medicines and personal items seized from the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the items were seized pursuant to a search warrant issued under the Provincial Offences Act, not under the Director's statutory authority.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it had exceeded its jurisdiction in its previous decision, as it lacked the statutory authority to order the return of or compensation for items seized under a court-issued search warrant.

The request for review was granted.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Ross Drain 2004 project under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued his lands did not benefit from the new tiles and that his assessment should be reduced.

The Tribunal found the engineer's assessment method compliant with the Act and accepted practice, concluding the appellant's lands did benefit from the new tiles and an upstream catch basin.

The appeal was denied, though minor agreed-upon amendments to the engineer's report were ordered.

The applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The applicant argued that the original hearing was not bilingual as requested, the translation services were inadequate, and the Panel failed to consider important factors.

The Vice Chair found that the applicant had agreed to consecutive translation, waived the right to full translation at the hearing, and that any translation errors were not material to the decision.

The request for review was denied.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion to dismiss several appeals under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing they were frivolous and vexatious and that the appellants failed to participate in an alternate hearing before the Drainage Referee.

The Tribunal found that the failure to attend the Referee's proceedings did not render the appeals to the Tribunal frivolous or an abuse of process, as the Referee had confirmed the appellants' right to maintain their appeals to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also found no factual basis to conclude the appeals were frivolous or vexatious under the legal test.

The motion to dismiss was granted with respect to one appellant who indicated he no longer wished to pursue his appeal, but dismissed for the remaining three appellants.

The Tribunal issued case management directions requiring the remaining appellants to provide full particulars and evidence within 20 days.

The appellants appealed decisions of the marketing board regarding requests to rescind quota transactions and amend applications under the Tobacco Transition Program (TTP).

The appellants argued that constant changes to the board's policy and confusing information prevented them from making informed decisions about their quota transfers.

The Tribunal found that the board communicated changes promptly, provided all producers with the same information at the same time, and treated the appellants no differently than other producers.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant, a retired veterinarian, appealed the revocation of his Class 1 Licence to sell livestock medicines and the seizure of his medicines.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had voluntarily resigned from the licensing system prior to the provisional suspension and revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also found that the Ministry committed procedural errors by failing to issue a warning letter and failing to provide an opportunity for compliance before the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the return of the seized medicines and personal items, and directed that the voluntary resignation not be considered negatively in any future licence application.

Several property owners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the Engineer's Report regarding the Glencairn Drainage Works, which proposed a cut-off drain to address severe flooding in the hamlet.

The appellants argued that the project was unnecessary, that alternative solutions like road ditches should have been considered, and that their individual assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the project was necessary to divert agricultural water around the residential area and that the cost distribution (80% to the municipality, 20% to landowners) was reasonable based on the benefit derived.

The appeals were denied.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs requested an extension of time to file submissions regarding the interpretation of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 and Ontario Regulation 723/93 in the context of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario's application for reaccreditation.

The request was made with the consent of the involved farm organizations.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal granted the request and extended the deadline for submissions to August 29, 2011.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs requested an extension of time to file submissions regarding the interpretation of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 and O. Reg. 723/93 in the context of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's reaccreditation application.

With the consent of the involved farm organizations, the Tribunal granted the extension, amending its previous interim order to allow submissions to be filed by August 29, 2011.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs requested an extension of time to file submissions regarding the interpretation of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 and O. Reg. 723/93, with the consent of the other farm organizations.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal granted the request, amending its previous interim order to extend the deadline for submissions from July 29, 2011, to August 29, 2011.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for a municipal drain project initiated by a road authority's petition.

The appellant and another assessed landowner argued the drainage work should have been done privately to save costs, and that the road authority should bear a larger share of the assessment.

The Tribunal found that the municipality and the engineer complied with the Drainage Act in proceeding with the report after receiving a valid petition.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's methodology for calculating the assessments and dismissed the appeal, confirming the original assessments.

The appellant, Knizat Farm Inc., appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding a crop insurance claim for its 2010 grape crop.

Agricorp had paid 58% of the maximum 85% insured value, attributing the remaining loss to uninsured perils such as Black Rot and Powdery Mildew.

The appellant argued the damage was primarily due to insured perils, specifically frost.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in Agricorp's assessment of the disease damage and insufficient consideration of the frost damage across the different microclimates of the rented vineyards.

The Tribunal ordered the payout to be adjusted from 58% to 70% of the maximum insured value.