OAFRAAT 2024

Several landowners appealed the 2022 Engineer's Report for the Cranberry Creek Municipal Drain, arguing that the land use factors (LUFs) were incorrect, the Pump and Dyke System was improperly included, and their properties were assessed too high.

The Tribunal found that the LUFs should have followed the Tribunal's 2020 Decision, which assigned lower factors to forested lands and provincially significant wetlands.

The Tribunal also found that the Pump and Dyke System had been abandoned and its inclusion constituted reconstruction, which falls outside the scope of a section 76 report.

Due to these and other significant errors in land use classification, the Tribunal set aside the 2022 Report.

The Administrator brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding the inclusion of a property in the Farm Property Class.

The Administrator argued that the property owners' failure to file a timely application or a request for reconsideration barred the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act is remedial and allows the Board to extend the time for an appeal to correct palpable errors, curing procedural defects.

Furthermore, the precondition for a request for reconsideration does not apply when MPAC is the appellant.

The appellants brought a preliminary motion requesting the Tribunal determine the scope of its jurisdiction to provide relief under the Ontario Human Rights Code prior to a full hearing, and seeking an order for disclosure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it could not determine its jurisdiction without a full evidentiary hearing to establish the facts of the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the disclosure request, characterizing it as a fishing expedition lacking a proper evidentiary basis.

The appellants appealed under section 58(5) of the Drainage Act, alleging that the respondent municipality failed to proceed with reasonable dispatch with the construction of the Zettler Municipal Drain after passing the provisional by-law.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's engineer had submitted the report and the municipality had tendered the project prematurely, before obtaining necessary environmental permits from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to apply for the required permits without delay and to amend the engineer's report if required by the conservation authority.

The appellant, an Alberta sheep farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Sheep Farmers (OSF) regarding the collection of licence fees on lambs sold into Ontario.

The Tribunal found the appellant lacked standing on several issues but had standing to challenge the application of the licencing regime to non-resident producers.

The Tribunal interpreted the General Regulations and found they did not clearly exempt non-resident producers from paying licence fees, exceeding OSF's authority.

The Tribunal ordered OSF to amend its regulations to explicitly state that no licence fee shall be charged to non-resident producers and to issue a directive stopping such deductions.

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Drainage Act for the replacement of the McClure Bridge, arguing their lands drained into a different drain than the one assessed.

The Tribunal found that the natural flow of water from the appellants' properties was towards the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, not the Crawford Drain as relied upon by the engineer's report.

The Tribunal concluded the engineer should have recommended a new watershed investigation upon discovering contradictions between historical reports and actual water flows.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants' assessment was removed and reallocated to the Township.

The applicants applied for an order waiving the requirement to register their farm with and make a prescribed payment to a farm organization on the basis of their religious conviction and belief in Buddhism.

The Tribunal applied a three-pronged test and found that the applicants' beliefs were genuinely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of their objection.

The application was granted.

The appellants brought a motion seeking declarations that the respondent municipalities lacked jurisdiction to refer an engineer's drainage report back for reconsideration, arguing the matter was before the Drainage Referee.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 57 of the Drainage Act provides clear authority for a municipal council to refer a report back to the engineer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal also noted there was no evidence of improper motive and that raising the jurisdictional issue at this stage was inappropriate.

The applicant municipality applied under s. 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment for a municipal drain.

The tribunal found that conditions had changed, including new storm drainage infrastructure bringing unassessed lands into the watershed, extensive cleanout activities, and land use changes.

The respondent municipality consented to the application, and no assessed persons objected.

The tribunal granted permission to procure the report.

The appellants, dairy farmers, appealed a reconsideration decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) refusing to replace their assigned milk transporter.

The dispute arose after an altercation between the appellant and a bulk tank milk grader, which led to rejected milk pickups and the appellant signing an undertaking.

Although the specific grader was permanently removed from the appellants' route prior to the hearing, the appellants continued to seek a new transporter.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the transporter should be replaced, noting the DFO's responsibility to minimize transportation costs province-wide.

The appellant appealed the benefit assessment for the Cobb's Lake Creek Municipal Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to remove the benefit assessment for the appellant's property and redistribute the costs to other properties in Section 5 of the drain.

The Tribunal approved the settlement agreement under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act and ordered the respondent municipality to amend the Provisional By-Law to incorporate the settlement terms before giving it third reading.

The Township of South-West Oxford applied to the Tribunal under subsection 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment for the Spitler Creek Drain.

The last report was completed in the mid-1970s, and numerous severances have occurred since.

Both townships consented to the application.

The Tribunal granted permission to procure the report.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of two appellants regarding the Tate Drain.

After the appeal of those appellants was dismissed, the Tribunal reviewed the Minutes of Settlement signed by the remaining parties.

Finding the settlement proper under section 51 of the Drainage Act, the Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement and ordered the Township to amend the provisional by-law accordingly.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of Ken and Robert J. Jones regarding the Tate Drain.

The appellants failed to attend several pre-hearing conferences and the peremptory motion hearing, and did not file responding materials.

The Tribunal found the appeal seemingly abandoned and dismissed it as frivolous under Rules 33.01 and 33.06 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Township of South-West Oxford applied on consent for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment for the Koteles Drain under section 76(1) of the Drainage Act.

The parties agreed that the maintenance schedule needed updating because there was no separate assessment schedule for Branch 'A' of the drain.

The Tribunal granted the application and permitted the procurement of the report.

The Appellants brought a motion for the production of documents, including a contract between the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and a milk transporter, GPS records, correspondence, and records of a third party's expulsion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were either irrelevant to the remaining issues in the appeal or constituted a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal also noted that some requests had been rescinded in a previous motion.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for their properties under the Drainage Act regarding the Biederman Municipal Drain improvement project.

They argued that the drainage works should be funded by existing property taxes rather than specific assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that the allowances were inadequate or that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the assessments were fair and reasonable, and adopted the Engineer's Report in full.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of a production order pending a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that it had no inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay and that neither the Farm Implements Act nor its Rules of Procedure provided such jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to apply the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the applicant must first obtain an extension from the Divisional Court before bringing its motion for leave to appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

The respondent, CLAAS of America Inc., sought costs of $5,348.40 against the applicant, Sunova Implement Ltd., following two motions for the production of documents.

The Tribunal found that Sunova's conduct in bringing its own motion without providing evidence of relevancy, and in resisting CLAAS's motion without evidence that the requested documents were irrelevant, was unreasonable.

The Tribunal awarded costs to CLAAS in the requested amount of $5,348.40 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed the election of a delegate to the Board of Directors of the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, arguing she was not an eligible 'producer' under Ontario Regulation 403/10.

The delegate had sold her primary hog operation but continued to raise a small number of hogs for farmgate sales.

The Tribunal found that the delegate met the regulatory definition of a producer at the time of the election, as she owned and produced hogs on a property in the relevant zone.

The appeal was denied.