OAFRAAT 2016

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Ouellette Drain East under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, the drain should flow west instead of east, the allowances provided were excessive, and their assessments should be reduced.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that the proposed easterly flow to the Marsh Creek Drain was a sufficient outlet, the allowances were properly calculated, and the assessments were appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the Report to reflect adjustments made at the Court of Revision.

Three property owners appealed their assessments under the Drainage Act for the repair, improvement, and extension of the Mary MacKenzie Drain.

The Tribunal granted the appeals of R.J. Broiler Farms Ltd. and Peter Bosma in part, finding that the watershed boundaries should be adjusted and certain 'Cut Off' benefits were improperly assessed.

The appeal of Jeannie Godlouski was denied, as she failed to provide evidence that her assessment was excessive or unfair.

The Tribunal ordered revisions to the Schedule of Assessment and the Schedule of Assessment for Future Maintenance.

The appellants, owners of large, primarily undeveloped properties, appealed their assessments for future maintenance of the Black Creek Drainage Works.

They argued that they should not be assessed for Benefit, or alternatively, that their Benefit assessment should be equivalent to a single developed lot.

The Tribunal held that Benefit assessments are appropriate for future maintenance schedules and that properties should be assessed based on their development potential rather than current use.

However, the Tribunal found that the engineer's method of equally dividing the Benefit assessment among the four large lots was inappropriate, and ordered that the assessment be re-distributed based on the length of drain abutting each property.

The appeal regarding a small, landlocked parcel was granted, reducing its assessment to zero.

The appellants filed a request for review of the Tribunal's decisions dismissing their appeal regarding a municipal drain and ordering them to pay the municipality's costs of $49,536.80.

The Tribunal limited the review to the costs decision because the request regarding the merits was filed out of time.

The Review Tribunal found no errors of law or fact in the original costs decision, noting the Tribunal has unfettered discretion under the Drainage Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to apportion costs.

The request for review was denied and the stay on the costs award was lifted.

The appellant, an egg producer, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding its Layer Leasing Pool (LLP) policy.

The LLP distributed market growth production rights equally among quota holders via an annual lease, rather than on a historical pro-rata basis.

The appellant argued the equal distribution was unfair to large producers and promoted inefficiency.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the LLP was developed through a reasonable process considering stakeholder input, new entrant access, and risk management, and the appellant failed to prove the policy was contrary to legislation or outside EFO's authority.