OAFRAAT 2012

The appellants appealed their assessment for the Broken Second Municipal Drain, arguing that their property drained into a different watershed and that they were being assessed twice for the same land.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence, based on field observations, that the land drained into the new municipal drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Court of Revision's minor reductions to the appellants' assessment, and ordered a notation on the overlapping drain's file to prevent future double assessment.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario denying his request to fix and allot basic quota to a new premises separate from his existing registered premises.

The appellant sought an exemption from the minimum 14,000 unit quota requirement per premises due to the financial costs of expanding his existing barn, which was located next to environmentally sensitive land.

The Tribunal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant's financial considerations and desire to expand did not constitute 'special circumstances' such as a barn fire or catastrophic illness that would warrant an exemption from the quota policy.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs appeared in support of the application.

Due to the urgent need to finalize annual farming business registration forms, the Tribunal released its decision without reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the NFU-O's application for accreditation, with written reasons to follow.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the newly amended criteria in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including membership fee requirements, incorporation, purpose, and funding agreements, the Tribunal granted the accreditation for a period of three years.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the amended criteria in O. Reg. 723/93.

Finding that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including having an annual membership fee of at least $195, being incorporated, representing persons carrying on farming businesses, providing advice to governments, and agreeing to provide special funding to the eligible francophone organization, the Tribunal granted the accreditation for a period of three years.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization.

In this fourth interim order, the Tribunal identified four areas of concern regarding whether the NFU-O meets the statutory requirements, including whether it represents farmers in Ontario, its actual purpose, its provision of advice to government, and its membership fees.

The Tribunal exercised its statutory powers to order the NFU-O to produce various corporate, financial, and membership documents to assist in determining these issues, and scheduled a further hearing.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

Following amendments to the relevant regulation, the NFU-O sought to withdraw its application and immediately file a fresh one.

The Tribunal raised concerns that this might constitute an abuse of process and issued a Second Interim Order seeking submissions.

In this Third Interim Order, the Tribunal declined the NFU-O's conditional requests regarding the withdrawal and directed the NFU-O to either unconditionally withdraw its letters or provide further submissions on the abuse of process issue.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Beets Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his lands did not require additional drainage, that the proposed drain would interfere with his farming operations, and that the allowances provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support modifying the assessments or allowances.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's proposed modifications to the drainage works, finding they did not provide a sufficient outlet as required by the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied and the Engineer's Report was confirmed.

The appellant, a mid-sized pullet growing operation, appealed a decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission denying its request for an exemption from Policy Direction 59.

Policy 59 revoked a grandfather clause that had previously exempted the appellant from having to obtain additional growing rights.

The Tribunal found that the Commission had engaged in a fair consultative process before adopting Policy 59 and that the appellant failed to show the policy was unfair, discriminatory, or unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

Following amendments to the accreditation criteria in the Regulation, which applied retroactively to the NFU-O's application, the NFU-O sought to withdraw its existing application and immediately commence a fresh one.

The Tribunal raised concerns that this procedure might constitute an abuse of process, given the substantial resources already expended and the identical nature of the applications under the amended criteria.

The Tribunal issued an interim order directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the withdrawal and fresh application would be an abuse of process and what orders would be appropriate.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal found that the OFA failed to meet several mandatory criteria for accreditation under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93, primarily because persons making payments to the OFA under section 21 of the Act could not be considered 'members' without an explicit membership agreement.

As the Tribunal has no discretion to grant accreditation if any criterion is not met, the application was dismissed.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal evaluated whether the CFFO met the criteria set out in section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal found that while the CFFO met several criteria, it failed to meet others, primarily due to its inability to treat persons making a payment under section 21 of the Act as members without an explicit membership agreement.

As the Tribunal has no discretion to accredit an organization that does not meet all legislative requirements, the application was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decisions of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the 4th Concession Drain in the Town of Kingsville.

The appellants raised issues concerning the necessity of widening the drain, compensation for tree removal, the cost of culvert replacement, and the calculation of their assessments based on property features like ponds and woodlots.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence that the widening was necessary to prevent flooding and that the assessments were properly calculated.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal of Ryan and Samantha Spitse in part, reducing their affected area and corresponding assessments to reflect the actual size of their property.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Driel Drain.

The appellant argued that 3.9 hectares of his property drained into the Main Drain rather than the Sykes Branch 1, and that $7,500 in engineering costs for a withdrawn petition should be assessed as a special benefit under the main report rather than separately.

The Tribunal found in favour of the appellant on both issues, directing the Engineer to amend the assessments accordingly.

The appellant appealed the assessment for the Kershaw Drain under the Drainage Act, arguing that the cost of the drain realignment on his property was too high and that he could have done the work privately for less.

The Tribunal found the engineer's assessment rationale to be fair, reasonable, and compliant with the Act, noting that the appellant provided no credible evidence to support a reduction.

The appeal was denied, and the Tribunal declined to award costs to the municipality, finding the appellant's conduct was not frivolous or in bad faith.

Norfolk County applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to correct errors in an engineer's report for a municipal drain.

The alleged errors were that the report and its appended drawings lacked the engineer's signature and seal, and the drawings were marked 'preliminary'.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because an unsigned and unsealed document does not constitute a 'report' under the Act, as it fails to meet the formal requirements incorporated from the professional regulatory regimes.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Marr Municipal Drain 2011 Improvement.

Following an initial hearing where the Tribunal set aside the Engineer's Report, the Municipality requested that the report be referred back to the Engineer for reconsideration under section 57 of the Drainage Act to ensure it included the required overall drainage plan.

The appellant consented to this request.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the Engineer and dismissed the appeal.

At a pre-hearing conference following a Divisional Court order remitting certain liability issues back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal determined procedural matters for the resumed hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that CNH would lead evidence first on the remitted liability issues, as they arose from CNH's appeal.

The Tribunal also ordered that the liability and damages phases of the hearing, which had previously been bifurcated, be re-joined to avoid unnecessary delay and prejudice, noting that the original reasons for bifurcation no longer existed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying his request to transfer his dairy quota to his daughter.

The DFO denied the transfer because it would effectively merge the quota with the daughter's in-laws' existing dairy operation, which the DFO argued was prohibited under its 2010 Parent to Child Transfer policy.

The Tribunal found that the plain language of the 2010 policy did not actually prohibit the specific type of transfer requested, despite the DFO's stated intentions to prevent mergers.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the DFO to process the quota transfer.

The applicant farm organization applied for accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted the applicant used the term 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria, raising an issue of statutory interpretation regarding the presumption of consistent expression.

The Tribunal issued an interim order allowing the applicant and the Minister to make written submissions on this interpretation issue.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further documentation regarding a qualification in its auditor's report to ensure compliance with the CICA Handbook.