OAFRAAT 2013

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) requested a review of a Tribunal decision denying its application for accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food supported the request.

The requester argued the Tribunal made errors of law, fact, and denied procedural fairness, particularly regarding the Tribunal's determination that NFU-O lacked standing because it was not 'representing farmers in the province'.

The Vice Chair denied the request for review, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine standing, its investigatory powers authorized raising issues on its own initiative, and there was no denial of procedural fairness as the parties had constructive notice of the issues being considered.

The Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) brought a motion for party status in an appeal by the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding a specialty chicken policy.

The Tribunal applied the test for party status under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that OIPP had a sufficient interest in the subject matter and that its participation would not cause prejudice or delay, the Tribunal granted the motion for full party status.

The Ontario Independent Poultry Processors filed a motion requesting full party status in an appeal brought by the Association of Ontario Chicken Processors against a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario regarding the Specialty Chicken Policy.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal granted the motion for party status, with written reasons to follow.

The appellants appealed the assessments and the Engineer's Report regarding the Luckins Drain West and Luckins Drain East.

The appellants argued that they derived negligible benefit from the drain and that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the principles applied by the Engineer to determine the Schedule of Assessments were consistent with the Drainage Act and generally accepted practice.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Court of Revision and confirmed the assessments set out in the Engineer's Report.

The Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal issued an amended order accrediting the National Farmers Union - Ontario as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

This order was issued pursuant to an order in the nature of mandamus by Justice Robert N. Beaudoin dated October 16, 2013, which directed the Tribunal to accredit the organization following a judicial review of the Tribunal's earlier denial.

The accreditation is for a period of three years commencing December 19, 2012.

Following an order in the nature of mandamus issued by Justice Robert N. Beaudoin directing the Tribunal to accredit the National Farmers Union - Ontario, the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal ordered that the organization be accredited as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993 for a period of three years.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act concerning a proposed retaining wall to address bank erosion on her property.

The appellant argued the report was deficient and that the municipality failed to provide the required statutory notice to the conservation authority prior to appointing the engineer.

The Tribunal found that the municipality failed to provide the mandatory 30 days' notice to the conservation authority under section 78(2) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal identified numerous deficiencies in the Engineer's Report, including missing plans, profiles, and specifications required by section 8.

Consequently, the appeal was granted and the Engineer's Report was set aside.

The Regional Municipality appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for a municipal drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the assessments of two landowners and re-allocated the costs to the Regional Municipality and an upstream landowner.

The Tribunal found no substantive evidence to support the Court of Revision's decision and set it aside.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that one of the landowners had requested special modifications to the drain (watertight pipe and rerouting) to prevent agricultural runoff from entering his recreational pond, which added significant extra costs to the project.

The Tribunal ordered that this landowner be assessed a special benefit for the entire extra cost, or be given the option to withdraw his requests and have the drain redesigned.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act which concluded that a petitioned drain could not be constructed.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal determined procedural matters including the hearing venue and discovery.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing to be held in Guelph rather than the municipality, citing balance of convenience and access to justice, as most participants were located in southern Ontario.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's request for examinations for discovery and leave to examine witnesses prior to the hearing.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the relocation of a drain onto their agricultural property to facilitate a neighbouring residential development.

The Tribunal upheld the proposed location and design of the drain, finding the benefits exceeded the costs.

However, the Tribunal found that the Engineer erred by not providing a Section 29 allowance for a 7.5 m working corridor adjacent to the drain, as the land use restrictions imposed a permanent impact.

The Tribunal ordered the Section 29 allowance increased by $22,500 to compensate for the working corridor.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Haws Drain 2012, arguing that their forested property received no benefit from the proposed drainage works and should not be assessed $911.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's methods for calculating the assessments to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments, noting that the property would benefit from access to a new legal drain outlet, which enhances the property's value.

The National Farmers Union - Ontario (NFU-O) requested a review of a Tribunal decision denying its application for accreditation under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The NFU-O and the Minister of Agriculture and Food argued the Tribunal made errors of law, fact, and denied procedural fairness, particularly regarding the Tribunal's determination that NFU-O lacked standing because it was not 'representing farmers in the province'.

The Vice Chair denied the request for review, finding that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to determine standing, possessed broad investigatory powers to raise issues on its own initiative, and provided adequate procedural fairness and notice to the parties throughout the process.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the Saxon Drain Branch No. 1.

The Engineer discovered that the appellants had installed tile drains that diverted water from outside the historical Saxon Drain watershed into the drain, overburdening its capacity.

The Engineer recommended blocking the unauthorized tiles and improving the adjacent Bateman Drain.

The appellants argued the historical watershed was incorrectly defined and their tiles did not adversely impact the drain.

The Tribunal found the appellants knowingly tiled beyond their assessed watershed, adversely impacting downstream landowners.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's recommendations to block the tiles and confirmed the assessments, but ordered that recommendations regarding improvements to the Bateman Drain be handled under a separate Section 78 process rather than forming part of the Saxon Drain by-law.

During the continuation of a hearing to consider damages, the appellant requested a voir dire regarding the admissibility of revised financial data and an expert report addendum.

The appellant had recently discovered that its original damages claim relied on projections rather than actual sales and expenses data now available.

The respondent objected on grounds of relevance and timing.

The Tribunal admitted the evidence, finding it prima facie relevant and concluding that the prejudice to the appellant of excluding it outweighed the prejudice to the respondent.

To mitigate any prejudice, the Tribunal granted a short adjournment, permitted further limited examination for discovery, and allowed the respondent to supplement its expert report.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report on the Jacques Drain 2012 under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the municipality and county should pay a larger share of the project costs and proposing alternative designs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to provide expert evidence to support their proposed alternatives.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the report was prepared in accordance with accepted engineering practices, that a proper cost-benefit analysis was conducted, and that the compensation and allowances were calculated correctly.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waglers appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Gingerich Road Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the Waglers' benefit assessment and increased the Region's assessment.

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

The Tribunal set aside the Court of Revision's decision and confirmed the assessments as set out in the Engineer's Report.

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.

The Tribunal found that the NFU-O did not have standing to apply because it did not represent farmers in the province, but rather acted as a passive legal conduit for the federally incorporated National Farmers Union (NFU) to access stable funding.

The Tribunal also found that, even if the NFU-O had standing, it failed to meet the prescribed criteria for accreditation.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a milk producer, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to reject a bulk tank of milk due to a 'malty' odour.

The appellant argued that the bulk tank milk grader did not follow proper procedures and that DFO's policy of not allowing second opinions was unfair.

The Tribunal found that the time temperature recorder data corroborated the grader's assessment of a malfunctioning agitator, which led to improper cooling and the malty smell.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection, concluding that the DFO acted within its legislative discretion and that procedural errors did not negate the grader's valid determination.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain project designed to convey stormwater and control erosion in a steep gully area.

The appellants argued the project was excessive and unwarranted, suggesting less expensive alternatives like rock riprap.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the design was appropriate for the extreme gradient and high water velocities, and that the appellants' property was properly assessed.

The appeal was denied and the engineer's report was confirmed without modification.