OAFRAAT 2014

This was a tribunal costs decision following a lengthy commercial dispute under the Farm Implements Act involving extensive interlocutory steps, seventeen hearing days, expert evidence, and an interim appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to award costs under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its own Rules, and found the responding party's conduct sufficiently unreasonable to satisfy the statutory preconditions for a costs award.

Applying by analogy the Rule 57 factors and common-law costs principles, the Tribunal held that the successful party was entitled to costs, but only on a partial indemnity basis because the conduct did not meet the reprehensible threshold required for substantial indemnity.

The Tribunal reduced claimed legal hours for duplication, overstaffing, unsuccessful issues, and delay, and disallowed major expert disbursements where the expert evidence was unreliable or unhelpful.

Costs were fixed at $376,338.05.

The Ministry of Natural Resources appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act and was completely unsuccessful.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought costs of the appeal.

The Tribunal determined that the Drainage Act, rather than the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, governed its costs jurisdiction, granting it broad discretion.

The Tribunal awarded the Municipality its costs on a partial indemnity basis, including reasonable disbursements for the Engineer's involvement, totaling $27,212.81.

The appellant requested a review of the Tribunal's decision refusing to hear his appeal regarding the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's 300-bird exemption policy.

The Tribunal had previously directed the appellant to restrict his appeal to the exemption policy, but he filed a 98-page revised notice of appeal seeking extensive relief outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair found that while the appeal might not have been entirely frivolous or vexatious if restricted to the exemption policy, the appellant's insistence on using the appeal as a platform for a personal political agenda constituted an abuse of process and bad faith.

The request for review was denied.

Several landowners appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act concerning the relocation and improvement of the Baillie Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the works were unnecessary, would cause maintenance issues, and that the process was flawed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants had no standing to appeal on the basis of benefits not being commensurate with costs since they were not assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal also found the proposed works, including the relocation of the drain and replacement of culverts, to be reasonable and in compliance with the Act's procedural requirements.

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Engineer's Report for the Meuller Drain 2014, arguing they were overcharged and seeking a reduction.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer's methods of calculating the assessments, including the benefit rate applied equally on a per metre basis, were reasonable, fair, and equitable.

The appellants failed to provide evidence that their property would not receive a benefit from the drain.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed their drainage assessment for the Gilbert Drain 2014, arguing that their assessment was too high and that upstream owners, particularly a wetland property, were assessed too little.

The Tribunal found that the engineer properly applied the modified Todgham method, correctly assigning a lower runoff coefficient to the wetlands compared to agricultural lands.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellants' argument regarding injuring liability, noting that the drain is a municipal drain governed by the Drainage Act, not common law.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were confirmed as fair and equitable.

AgriCorp brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's request for a re-hearing of his crop insurance claim due to a five-year delay.

The Tribunal found that the delay was unreasonable and largely attributable to the appellant and his counsel, who failed to provide satisfactory explanations or medical evidence.

The appellant also failed to comply with a previous order to repay insurance funds as a condition of the re-hearing.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay and non-compliance constituted an abuse of process, granted the motion to dismiss, cancelled the re-hearing, and restored the original 2008 decision.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the Centre Dingman Creek Drain Branch 'D' under the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the assessments levied against their properties, the design of the drainage works, and the adequacy of compensation and allowances.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that the proposed works were necessary to address drainage issues in the urban community of Mossley and that the design met provincial standards.

The Tribunal found the assessment methodology to be logical, equitable, and compliant with the Act, and declined to modify the drainage works or adjust the assessments.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) objected to the Tribunal's direction that a pre-hearing conference proceed by way of a written hearing, seeking an oral pre-hearing motion instead.

The Tribunal considered the objection and found no good reason at this stage to grant the request for a format change.

The AOCP's request was denied, and the written pre-hearing conference was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Producers (AOCP) brought a motion for limited party (intervenor) status in an appeal by a dairy producer against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO).

The AOCP argued it had an interest in the constitutional and Competition Act issues raised by the appellant regarding supply management policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the AOCP failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal, which concerned milk quota transfer policies.

The Tribunal also noted that granting status shortly before the scheduled hearing would cause prejudice and delay.

The appellant filed an appeal concerning the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's 300-bird exemption policy.

The Tribunal had previously directed the appellant to restrict his appeal to this specific issue, but the appellant filed a 98-page revised notice of appeal seeking extensive relief beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including damages and declarations of bad faith.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was trivial, frivolous, vexatious, and not made in good faith, as the appellant was using the process to advance a personal political manifesto rather than a genuine dispute.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal pursuant to s. 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appellant appealed a specialty chicken policy enacted by the respondent marketing board.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent revoked the policy and enacted a new one.

The appellant sought to continue the appeal, arguing its members suffered irreparable damage from the previous policy.

The respondent and an intervener argued the appeal must be dismissed as the policy no longer existed.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to continue the appeal because the appealed policy was revoked, and the appellant must first apply to the marketing board for a hearing regarding the new policy as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence against the statutory criteria, including the organization's promotion of agricultural awareness among francophones, provision of advice to governments, and maintenance of ties with other farm organizations.

The Tribunal found that the UCFO met all conditions and criteria for eligibility.

The application for special funding was granted for a three-year period.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the Ontario Independent Poultry Processors (OIPP) regarding the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's (CFO) Specialty Chicken Policy No. 199-2013.

AOCP argued the policy had been effectively replaced by subsequent CFO decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature since the policy had not yet been officially withdrawn.

However, the Tribunal granted an adjournment of the substantive hearing to allow CFO time to complete its policy review and align it with the national policy.

The appellants, landowners within the Little Creek Municipal Drain watershed, appealed the Engineer's Reassessment Report for future maintenance of the drain.

They argued that the Engineer's ratio of 'benefit' to 'outlet' assessment unfairly burdened their lands.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer relied too heavily on previous reports and that, for maintenance projects, benefit assessments should not apply because maintenance simply preserves the existing outlet for all lands in the drainage area without providing new benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer to revise the assessment schedule to eliminate benefit assessments and base it solely on outlet assessments.

The Tribunal also ordered corrections for overlooked woodlots and ownership errors, and directed the municipality to proceed with requested maintenance work.

The appellant filed a Revised Notice of Appeal challenging a Chicken Farmers of Ontario regulation and the supply management system.

The Tribunal found the revised notice to be an agglomeration of treatises that persisted in challenging matters outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, despite a previous order striking the original notice with leave to amend.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intention to refuse to hear the appeal under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, granting the appellant one final opportunity to make written submissions as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or outside jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the Ruscom River Outlet No. 3 Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the damage allowances and benefit assessments levied against their property.

The Tribunal upheld the allowances provided for the loss of a tree and a boathouse, finding no compelling evidence to adjust them.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part regarding the benefit assessment, reducing it from $9,434 to $7,144 by adjusting the cost allocation for a new steel sheet pile wall to match the allocation used for filling the boat well.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission brought a motion arguing the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over an appeal by the Ontario Dairy Council.

The Commission contended its decision to allow a convenience store to test market a three-litre milk jug was of general application.

The Tribunal found the decision was of specific application because it involved an ad hoc approach and idiosyncratic conditions under section 18 of Regulation 753, rather than a general prescription under section 8.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the motion and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

OtonaBEE Apiary appealed a Director's decision confirming a compliance order that required them to pack honey in containers complying with Ontario Regulation 119/11.

The apiary used 500 ml and 1 L jars, which held 650 g and 1,330 g of honey respectively, arguing the extra honey was a free bonus or that the regulation's metric weights should be interpreted as liquid volumes.

The Tribunal rejected both arguments, finding the regulation strictly requires containers of specific net weights (e.g., 500 g, 1 kg).

The appeal was dismissed and the compliance order confirmed, with a 45-day period to remove non-compliant containers.

The appellants, dairy farmers operating an organic farm, appealed a decision imposing a $530.46 penalty after a milk sample from their bulk tank tested positive for an abnormal freezing point.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative and questioned the collection, transportation, and testing methods, citing extreme cold weather and potential human error.

The Tribunal found that the respondent followed all proper procedures to maintain the integrity of the sample and that the appellants' challenge was based on pure speculation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld.