OAFRAAT 2022

The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.

The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.

The appellants challenged an administrative decision finding that they illegally transported milk between two separately licensed dairy facilities operating on the same property and imposing $10,000 in penalties.

The Tribunal held a de novo hearing and applied the civil standard of proof, requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence because of the serious licensing consequences.

It found the respondent's case was entirely circumstantial and did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that milk had been moved contrary to the regulation.

The tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation for unusual production patterns and found the trailer-mounted tank evidence inconsistent with clandestine milk transfer.

The decision and penalties were set aside, and any deducted penalties were ordered credited back.

The appellant brought a motion seeking disclosure of numerous documents related to the Smeltzer Drain 2020 project.

The Tribunal found that not all requested documents were relevant to the appeal.

The respondent confirmed which documents existed and agreed to a timeline for delivery.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the relevant documents to the appellant by a specified date.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Processors appealed a reconsideration decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission regarding a new Cost of Production formula.

The appellant sought six amendments to the formula, including changes to the prime rate calculation, exclusion of depreciation from working capital, adjustments to farm labour benefit and wage rates, use of a real rate of return, and addition of a risk premium.

After hearing extensive expert testimony from all parties, the Tribunal found the expert evidence presented by the respondent and third party to be more reliable and acceptable on all six issues.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant municipality applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the 1924 Schedule of Assessment for a municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that changes in land use, severances, and the fact that only one-third of the watershed area was assessed justified a variation.

As no assessed persons objected, the Tribunal granted the requested permission.

The appellants appealed their Outlet Liability assessment under the Drainage Act for the Komoka Drainage Works.

They argued the drainage works should be funded entirely by the municipality's Stormwater Management levy or that their assessment should be reduced due to an inappropriate equivalent factor applied to their agricultural land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' properties were not in the Settlement area and did not pay into the Stormwater levy.

The Tribunal also found the engineer's use of a 1.0 factor for agricultural lands was fair and reasonable, and that the assessment was calculated correctly using the modified Todgham method.

The appellants appealed their municipal drain assessments under section 54 of the Drainage Act, seeking reductions in their outlet liability and benefit assessments.

They argued that a lower runoff factor should have been applied to their property, which is a provincially significant wetland, and that they received no benefit from the drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the outlet liability appeals because the appellants failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the $1,000 benefit assessment, reducing it to zero, as the property would not increase in value or be more easily maintained as a result of the works.

The Appellants sought to appeal a drainage assessment to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Appellants had attended the Court of Revision and made oral submissions but had not filed a written appeal within the required timeframe, despite being advised of the option to file a late appeal.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the Appellants did not file an appeal with the Court of Revision, they were not parties to an appeal before it.

Consequently, under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant, an inactive egg grading station and quota holder, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) refusing to enact a 'directed marketing' policy that would require producers to market eggs to it.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had standing as an aggrieved person, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order EFO to exercise its discretionary delegated powers to create such a policy.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was vexatious and brought in bad faith, as it was pursued concurrently with civil litigation raising similar issues and alongside three other withdrawn appeals.

The appeal was dismissed without a hearing, and costs of $8,842.25 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed the assessments in the Engineer's Report for the Highway 6 Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

Two of the appellants withdrew their appeals at the hearing.

The remaining appellants and the respondent municipality reached a consent agreement to reduce the outlet liability assessment for the appellants' property and correspondingly increase the benefit assessment for the municipal wastewater treatment plant.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report amended in accordance with the consent agreement.

The appellant, a mid-sized dairy processor, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to invoice it retroactively at the highest class price for milk deliveries after multiple audits found its production records unreliable and unverifiable.

The appellant argued that the retroactive invoice constituted an unauthorized penalty under the Milk Act and that DFO lacked authority to impose it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 24 of DFO General Regulation 10/17 authorizes DFO to charge the highest class price when a processor fails to provide verifiable milk utilization declarations.

The Tribunal also held that the surcharge was not a penalty but a mechanism to ensure fair compensation to dairy farmers.

Finally, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a prior settlement agreement between the parties.

The appellants appealed their assessments for the construction and future maintenance costs of the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain Phase 1 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments should be reduced or eliminated due to lack of benefit and alleged negligence by the municipality in managing drainage infrastructure.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the properties did benefit from the drainage works and that the assessments were fairly and reasonably calculated using the Todgham method.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties made oral submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the appeal should be dismissed before a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow, and set a schedule for written submissions on costs.

This tribunal order set procedural directions for an electronic hearing of a municipal drain appeal under the Drainage Act.

The tribunal directed the parties to provide participant information, govern witness attendance and testimony by Zoom, and establish filing requirements for documentary evidence and engineer reports.

The order also addressed public access, objections during the proceeding, and technical requirements for participation.

The appellants appealed the assessments made in an Engineer's Report for the reconstruction of the Galbraith Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their property would not benefit from the proposed drain and that the watershed boundary had changed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the engineer who prepared the report, finding that the appellants would benefit from the removal of an open ditch and reduced surface water.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were fair and reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the assessments in the Engineer's Report for the Paauw Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The parties reached a resolution and sought a consent order from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered corrections to the Engineer's Report and revised assessments for the appellant's property, setting aside the Court of Revision decision regarding the property.

The Appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the proposed Noah Martin Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing a lack of procedural fairness, requesting the drain be relocated off his property, seeking explicit permission for future underdrainage connections, and claiming insufficient allowances.

The Tribunal found that statutory consultation processes were followed and accepted the engineer's proposed route.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised to explicitly state the drain has capacity for the Appellant's future underdrainage and increased the section 30 allowance for damages by $1,000 to account for additional fence crossings.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate issues regarding the Early Egg Removal Program and Early Fowl Removal Program.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal because the appellant requested an order directed to it.

The motion was granted, and the OFPMC was granted participant status.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party, and consequently qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party and therefore qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.