OAFRAAT 2012

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant used the word 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal issued an interim order requesting written submissions from the applicant and the Minister on whether the presumption of consistent expression applies to the interpretation of the word 'member' in the Regulation.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) applied for accreditation as a farm organization.

During the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant used the word 'member' inconsistently when addressing different accreditation criteria under section 5 of Ontario Regulation 723/93.

The Tribunal issued an interim order directing the applicant and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to provide written submissions on whether the presumption of consistent expression applies to the interpretation of the word 'member' in the Regulation.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled hearing due to a scheduling error and requested an adjournment by phone.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and requested costs of $3,000 for travel and witness expenses.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the appellant's error did not warrant dismissing the appeal.

However, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $3,000 in costs to the respondent as a condition of continuing the appeal.

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on several existing municipal drains.

The request was necessitated by the annexation of lands and roads by the City of Woodstock in 2005, which rendered the existing assessment schedules unworkable.

The City of Woodstock and the Township of Norwich supported the application.

The Tribunal found that the requirements of section 76 were met and granted the Township permission to appoint an engineer to procure the necessary reports.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding an Engineer's Report for municipal drain improvements.

At the hearing, the Tribunal orally ordered the Report set aside due to non-compliance with the Drainage Act, including the engineer's failure to independently research land ownership and use, and procedural irregularities.

Following the hearing, the municipality submitted new information contradicting evidence presented at the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered a new hearing to review the post-hearing submission and its effect on the oral order.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the David Adams Municipal Drain.

The dispute originated from an unauthorized dam constructed by the appellant Grinnell, which caused upstream flooding and inadvertently created a heron rookery and enhanced fish habitat.

The appellants argued the costs of the drainage works, which included significant environmental mitigation measures, were not commensurate with the benefits, and challenged their specific assessments.

The Tribunal found that the benefits of the project extended to the regional community and upheld the overall project.

However, the Tribunal reduced the Campbell assessment due to an area calculation error, reduced Grinnell's special benefit assessment for culverts to account for a pre-existing crossing, and shifted the cost of the heron rookery mitigation from Grinnell to the Municipality.

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

The DFO had denied the request on the basis that the transfer would effectively merge the quota with her husband's family's existing dairy operation, which the DFO argued was prohibited under its 2010 policy changes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the plain language of the 2010 Parent to Child Transfer policy did not actually prohibit the requested transfer, despite the DFO's stated intentions to prevent mergers.

The Tribunal ordered the quota transferred.

The appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The Board denied the application on the basis that the appellant's son, who had a history of regulatory contraventions, was the de facto producer standing behind the application.

The Tribunal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board was entitled to treat the appellant and her son as one unit for the purpose of assessing the application, and that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory plan to ensure her son would not be involved in the tobacco production.

The Township of East Zorra-Tavistock applied for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on the Stan Erb Drain due to changes in the watershed since the original 1968 report.

The Township of Perth East consented to the application.

The Tribunal found that the request met the requirements of Section 76 of the Drainage Act and granted permission to appoint an engineer.

The Director requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision that ordered the return of seized livestock medicines and personal items to Ken Allan, or compensation if they were destroyed.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction under the Livestock Medicines Act to award compensation, as its powers are limited to licensing decisions.

Furthermore, because the items were seized pursuant to a search warrant under the Provincial Offences Act, only a justice of the peace or provincial judge has the authority to order their return.

The Tribunal cancelled the previous orders.

The appellant appealed the decision of The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying her 2012 application for licence eligibility to produce tobacco.

The appellant sought an expedited decision so she could plant tobacco in time for the 2012 crop year.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, issuing its decision without reasons to accommodate the planting schedule, with full written reasons to follow.

The Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens (UCFO) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its eligibility for special funding under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the statutory criteria, including the organization's role in promoting francophone awareness of agriculture, providing education, and maintaining ties with other agricultural organizations.

Finding that the UCFO met all conditions and criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and renewed the special funding eligibility for a three-year period.

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

The Tribunal considered whether the payment of the prescribed amount to the Ministry could be treated as a membership fee, concluding it could only if an explicit membership agreement existed.

The Tribunal found that the NFU-O did not meet several prescribed criteria for accredited farm organizations, including those related to membership agreements, audited financial statements, and electoral processes.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the NFU-O's application for reaccreditation.

The applicant farm organization applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal considered whether the mandatory payment provided to the Ministry could be treated as a membership fee, concluding it could only if an explicit membership agreement existed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's practice of conferring membership automatically upon payment contravened the Act.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the prescribed criteria regarding the content and timely submission of its audited financial statements.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the application for reaccreditation.

A farm organization sought renewal of its accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal held that the prescribed amount paid to the Ministry for an accredited farm organization may be treated as a membership fee only where there is an explicit membership agreement, including an explicit application by the farm business and explicit acceptance communicated by the organization.

Applying the mandatory statutory reaccreditation test, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet several prescribed criteria, including criteria relating to membership, audited financial reporting, local affiliate contributions, and provincial electoral processes.

The application for renewal of accreditation was therefore refused.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment for the Laister Drain Branches 1, 3, and 4 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) should be assessed a higher amount for the drain reconstruction because the recent expansion of Highway 401 caused additional water to flow onto his property.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the drainage engineer, who testified that the MTO watershed area and runoff coefficients had been appropriately calculated and increased to account for the highway expansion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to contradict the engineer's findings or justify amending the schedule of assessments.

The County of Elgin appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding drainage assessments for the Talbot Line Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced assessments for two property owners and reapportioned those costs entirely to the County.

The Tribunal confirmed one reduction based on new evidence but ordered the costs reapportioned among all affected parties.

The Tribunal rescinded the second reduction, finding no rationale for the Court of Revision's decision, and reinstated the original benefit assessments from the Engineer's Report.

The County of Elgin appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Kalita-Pfeifer Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the assessment of a private landowner and added the difference to the County's assessment.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's original assessment methodology to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

Finding no rationale for the Court of Revision's decision, the Tribunal rescinded the reduction and reinstated the original assessments.

The applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision ordering him to pay $7,080.70 in costs to the City of Kawartha Lakes.

The costs were awarded after the applicant failed to comply with a procedural order, prompting the City to bring a motion to dismiss his appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the original costs decision was fair, balanced, and contained no material error of law or fact.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) assessing an Excess Production Levy of $21,978.99 for exceeding its quota allotment.

The appellant argued the overproduction resulted from a clerical error by an inexperienced employee who relied on the wrong document to order chicks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the producer's failure to properly train and guide the employee did not constitute exceptional circumstances or force majeure warranting a waiver of the levy.