OAFRAAT 2018

The appellant appealed the benefit/outlet assessments for the Workman Municipal Drain 2018 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

He argued his assessment was too high compared to downstream properties and that upstream wetlands would receive an improved outlet.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over his other concerns regarding the need, design, and cost of the works, as he missed the deadline to appeal under section 48.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the assessments were developed using the modified Todgham method and were fair and equitable.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to an amendment to the engineer's report to include an inlet control device to ensure the upstream wetlands do not receive an improved outlet.

The appellant property owner appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging poor quality of construction of a municipal drain.

The appellant claimed the drain was installed at the wrong elevation and failed to properly connect with existing private lateral drains, seeking reimbursement for corrective work.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that a section 64 appeal strictly concerns whether the works were constructed as designed in the engineer's report.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert engineering evidence that the drain was constructed as designed, and noted the appellant failed to provide reliable evidence to the contrary.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the engineer erred in providing damage allowances for tree removal and disputed the watershed boundaries and runoff coefficients used to calculate assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence regarding the necessity of tree removal, the appropriateness of the allowances, and the accuracy of the topographical survey and runoff coefficients used for the assessments.

The applicant applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for re-accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence submitted by the applicant, including its incorporation, democratic election processes, membership numbers, financial statements, and support for local branches.

Finding that the applicant met all statutory and regulatory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered the applicant re-accredited for a period of three years.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario 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 evidence and found that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including having a democratic board, representing a wide base of farming businesses, maintaining at least 250 supporter farming businesses, and providing education and advocacy.

The Tribunal granted the application and ordered the renewal of the applicant's accreditation for a three-year period.

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 uncontradicted evidence and determined that the OFA satisfied all prescribed criteria under Ontario Regulation 723/93, including membership numbers, democratic processes, financial reporting, and advocacy efforts.

The Tribunal ordered the renewal of the OFA's accreditation for a three-year period commencing December 6, 2018.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.

The requester sought a review of the Tribunal's decision dismissing her appeal under section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding the Dingle Creek Municipal Drain.

The requester alleged various procedural errors, bias, and jurisdictional issues, including expired limitation periods and invalid drainage petitions.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no significant new evidence, no material errors of fact or law, and concluding that the requester was attempting to re-litigate the original appeal.

The Tribunal also upheld the previous costs awards against the requester, which were based on the vexatious conduct of her representative.

The appellant appealed a municipal engineer's report proposing a new drainage works under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the drain should be constructed on an alternative alignment or as a mutual agreement drain.

The appellant claimed the proposed works would negatively impact his property and proposed agricultural development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the engineer's evidence that the proposed alignment was hydraulically efficient, necessary to alleviate surface ponding, and that the appellant's alternative was significantly more expensive and technically inferior.

The Tribunal affirmed the municipality's right to proceed via petition rather than mutual agreement.

The appellant requested a review of the Tribunal's amended decision, which upheld the Chicken Farmers of Ontario's authority to enact by-laws requiring District Committee Representatives to sign a Code of Business Conduct and Confidentiality Agreement, and to suspend dealings with the appellant for refusing to do so.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no material error of fact or law in the original decision.

The appellants appealed the assessments and the engineer's report for the Dingle Creek Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Three appellants argued their assessments were too high or disproportionate, while one appellant argued the drainage works were unnecessary and proposed an alternative design.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals, finding the calculations were reasonable and consistent.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the engineer's report, accepting uncontradicted expert evidence that the proposed bank stabilization was necessary to address ongoing erosion and that the appellant's alternative design was not viable.

Due to the egregious, aggressive, and disruptive conduct of one appellant's representative, who walked out of the hearing during cross-examination and made unsupported allegations, the Tribunal awarded costs of $12,500 to the municipality and $10,000 to the engineer.

Four landowners appealed the assessments and design of the Dingle Creek Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

Three appellants challenged their assessments, arguing they received no benefit or were assessed unfairly compared to neighbours.

The Tribunal dismissed these appeals, finding the assessments were calculated reasonably and consistently.

The fourth appellant challenged the design of the drainage works, proposing an alternative route.

The Tribunal dismissed this appeal based on uncontradicted expert evidence that the proposed alternative was not viable and would cause the creek to dry up.

Due to the fourth appellant's representative's unreasonable and disruptive conduct, including walking out of the hearing, the Tribunal awarded costs of $12,500 to the County and $10,000 to the Engineer.

The applicants brought a complaint under the Farm Implements Act regarding the alleged failure of the hydraulic system of a tractor purchased from the respondent.

At the commencement of the scheduled five-day hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that the matter had settled.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal dismissed.

The appellant, a chicken producer and elected District Committee Representative (DCR), appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (the Board) suspending its dealings with him after he refused to sign a Code of Business Conduct and Confidentiality Agreement.

The appellant argued the Board lacked the legal authority to impose these requirements or to suspend him.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board has broad by-law making authority under the Farm Products Marketing Act to regulate its governance and affairs.

The Tribunal held that requiring DCRs to sign the agreements is consistent with modern corporate governance best practices and that the Board has the authority to restrict access to confidential information for DCRs who refuse to sign.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the proposed Krause-Piquette Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant raised concerns regarding the alignment of certain branch drains, the environmental impact of the main drain excavation, the spreading of spoil, land allowances, and the assessment of a rock outcropping.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals, finding that the appellant provided no contrary engineering evidence for realignment and that environmental and drainage concerns were adequately addressed in the report.

However, the Tribunal granted the section 54 appeal in part, reducing the appellant's assessment for the Piquette Branch because it primarily served as an outlet for another property.

The appellants and the OSPE Land Drainage Committee requested a review of a Tribunal decision that dismissed an appeal regarding a municipal drainage petition.

The requesters argued that new evidence (a prior Tribunal decision) and errors of law justified a review.

The Vice-Chair denied the request, finding that case law does not constitute new evidence and that the Tribunal correctly required proof that the petition met the statutory thresholds under Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Rose Beach Line Drain Outlet Structure under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The report recommended constructing a steel sheet piling flume to address severe erosion at the drain's outlet on Lake Erie.

The appellants argued the project was too costly, unnecessary, and poorly designed for a coastal environment.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals, finding the appellants failed to provide expert engineering evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal ordered the municipality to obtain a coastal engineer's review of the design and to secure all necessary agency approvals before proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered that the existing right of way be used for access and approved minor revisions to the assessment schedules.