OAFRAAT 2015

The appellant, a chicken farmer, appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying his request for an exemption from a $1,768 annual service charge.

The charge was imposed on producers who opted out of the CFO's mandatory digital communication system and chose to continue filing paper forms.

The Tribunal found that the CFO had the statutory authority under Regulation 402 of the Farm Products Marketing Act to impose both licence fees and service charges.

As no other exempted producer was relieved from paying the fee, the Tribunal found no basis to grant the appellant an exemption and dismissed the appeal.

Integrated Farming Ltd. (IFL), a joint venture between a tomato processor and a farming enterprise, appealed a decision by the Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers denying it a licence to produce and market tomatoes for processing.

The Board had refused the licence on the basis that the joint venture was an arrangement designed to circumvent pricing restrictions and achieve a lower price for tomatoes.

The Tribunal found that the joint venture had legitimate business purposes, including supply chain control and product differentiation, and that the Board failed to prove the arrangement was solely to circumvent pricing.

The Tribunal ordered the Board to issue the producer licence to IFL.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for a new municipal drain, challenging the lack of alternative routes, the right of way allowances, and the benefit assessments to their property.

The Tribunal found that no feasible alternative routes existed due to topography and upheld the right of way allowances as fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed drain provided no agricultural or developmental benefit to the appellants' lands.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the section 22 benefit assessment and the upstream maintenance assessment to zero, while maintaining the section 23 outlet assessment.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal their assessment for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

They initially chose not to appeal the Court of Revision's decision due to cost concerns, but sought an extension after the tendered project cost significantly exceeded the engineer's estimate.

The Tribunal applied the Bellcraft factors and denied the motion, finding the applicants made a conscious decision not to appeal within the statutory timeframe, failed to provide evidence supporting their objection to the assessment, and did not demonstrate that the delay would not prejudice other affected landowners.

The appellants appealed the assessments levied against their property in the Engineer's Report for the Bateman Municipal Drain, arguing that the watershed boundaries were incorrect, certain benefit assessments were unjustified, and specific design changes were needed.

They also claimed the Court of Revision refused to hear their appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Engineer's methodology for distributing costs was fair and equitable, and that design changes must be appealed under section 48, not section 54.

The Tribunal also found the Court of Revision acted correctly in refusing to hear design matters.

The Municipality's request for costs was denied as the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious.

The municipality requested a review of a prior Tribunal decision that set aside a 2014 engineer's report for a municipal drain project.

The original panel found the estimated $400,000 cost of the proposed drainage works was not commensurate with the benefits, as the existing drain operated acceptably with routine maintenance.

The Review Tribunal dismissed the municipality's request, finding no significant new evidence or material errors of law or fact that would have likely resulted in a different decision.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Ashley Drain.

Two appellants sought to alter the drain's design due to environmental concerns and a desire for extended drainage, while another sought a reduction in their benefit assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the design alteration appeals, finding the proposed route practical and environmentally sound.

However, the Tribunal allowed one assessment appeal in part, reducing the benefit assessment to zero based on an agreed modification to the drain's profile on that property, and ordered the municipality to conduct a stormwater management study.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and requested a review of the Engineer's Account pertaining to the Zavitz Municipal Drain and associated branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer's Report contained oversights, including failing to account for the naturalized state of the Clee property and the correct location of the existing drain on the Philip property.

The Tribunal also found the engineering fees for the Zavitz Drain to be unreasonable and excessive, directing that they be reduced to the provincial average of 23% of the total project cost and reallocated between the municipalities based on the travel length of the drain.

The Engineer was ordered to revise the report accordingly.

The moving party appealed a decision of the responding party regarding calculated base adjustments for chicken processors and brought a motion for a stay of those adjustments pending the appeal.

The Tribunal held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay that suspends the current policy, but rather maintains the status quo of the existing adjustment policy.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the requested stay, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

Several residential property owners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Sinclair Drain/Virostek Drain 2014 under the Drainage Act, challenging the necessity of the works, the proposed design, and the assessments levied against them.

The appellants argued they should not have to pay for drainage improvements that primarily benefit adjacent agricultural lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed covered drain was the most cost-effective and technically sound solution.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the residential development had obstructed natural surface water flows, and upheld the assessments as fairly distributed using the modified Todgham Method.

A farmer appealed the assessment of costs for an environmental impact study required by the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (CA) for a proposed municipal drain.

The CA argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over it.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the CA because the CA acted under its own parallel regulatory regime, despite ignoring the Drainage Act processes.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Municipality to bear the full $49,944 cost of the study because it failed to properly manage the Drainage Act process and protect the farmer from unexpected costs.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision to refer an Engineer's Report back to the engineer under the Drainage Act.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority brought a motion for party status.

The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 45(2) because the Act does not provide an appeal right when a report is referred back to the engineer.

Finding that the appeal essentially challenged the validity of the council's resolution, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Drainage Referee pursuant to s. 106(1)(b), the Tribunal transferred the matter to the Referee under s. 119.

Consequently, the motion for party status was deemed academic.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) requiring him to provide an email address for communications and suspending his crop quota until compliance.

At the hearing, the CFO conceded and agreed to allow the appellant to communicate in writing.

The Tribunal set aside the quota suspension.

The issue of the prescribed fee for non-digital communications was remitted to the CFO Board for a first-instance determination.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the Fox-Jakait Drain.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer failed to properly allocate costs associated with road crossings to the road authority as mandatorily required by section 26 of the Drainage Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessment against the appellants unfairly applied a runoff coefficient of 0.50, failing to account for the 0.25 coefficient mandated by their existing development agreement and stormwater management plan.

The Tribunal ordered the Schedule of Assessment to be amended accordingly.

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

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

Finding that the NFU-O met all the criteria, including membership numbers, local branch requirements, and financial reporting, the Tribunal granted the re-accreditation for a three-year period.

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

The Tribunal reviewed the application against the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 723/93.

Finding that the CFFO met all the necessary requirements, including corporate structure, membership numbers, local branch contributions, and the provision of agricultural education and advocacy, the Tribunal granted the application.

The CFFO was re-accredited for a three-year period commencing December 6, 2015.

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

The Tribunal reviewed the OFA's application against the prescribed criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 723/93, as amended.

Finding that the OFA met all the necessary requirements, including those related to membership, financial contributions to local branches, and the provision of education and advocacy, the Tribunal granted the application and re-accredited the OFA for a three-year period.

The Norfolk County Roads Department appealed the Engineer's report for the Decou Road Drain, arguing that the assessments for benefit and outlet liability for Branch B were disproportionately levied against the municipality.

The Engineer had assessed 100% of the remaining capital costs and future maintenance costs for Branch B against Norfolk County, while assessing other affected properties at zero dollars.

The Tribunal found that the construction of Branch B offered significant benefit to other directly affected properties and that the assessment of capital and maintenance costs solely against the municipality was inequitable.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the Engineer to revise the Schedule of Assessment for Branch B to include appropriate assessments for benefit and outlet liability against all affected lands.

The appellants brought an appeal under the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

In this costs decision, the Tribunal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent municipality's costs of $49,536.80.

The Tribunal found the appeal was frivolous, pursued without reliable evidence, and improperly delved into issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction despite preliminary rulings.

The Tribunal denied costs to the other landowners who attended the hearing.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Coleman Municipal Drain 2013.

They argued that the installation of HDPE pipes did not comply with industry standards, specifically regarding pipe dropping, excavation for bell ends, joint alignment, gasket placement, haunching, and traffic over the pipe, which they theorized would lead to tree root intrusion.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the construction fell below the 'first class workmanship' standard required by the Engineer's Report.

The appeal was dismissed.