OAFRAAT 2025

The respondent sought costs against the applicant following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to recuse the Tribunal Chair.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct in bringing the recusal motion was unreasonable and frivolous, as it lacked factual evidence of bias and was an improper collateral attack on previous interlocutory decisions.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award substantial indemnity costs as the conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works would not ameliorate flooding on their properties, objected to the assessment of costs for bank restoration, and argued that the costs of previous incomplete engineering reports should not be assessed to the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the MacNeils' appeals but adjusted the assessment schedule for the Bank Restoration Improvement Program.

The Tribunal allowed Whisky Run Golf Club's appeals in part, ordering that the engineering fees from previous incomplete reports be borne solely by the Municipality, that a mobile pump be used instead of a permanent pump, and that the cost of pumping be divided as 50% Outlet Liability and 50% Benefit to lands lower than the top of the gates.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing the appeals were premature as construction was ongoing.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under the Drainage Act or its Rules of Procedure to dismiss the appeals without a hearing on the basis of prematurity.

However, relying on its power to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal vacated the scheduled hearing dates and stayed the appeals until the drainage works are certified as complete.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report for the Northland Estates Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the proposed drain moved 3 meters west to protect mature boundary trees on their property.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act authorizes the construction of drainage works and provides compensation for property and tree damage, superseding the Forestry Act's requirement for mutual consent to injure boundary trees.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed location on the adjacent farmland was the least intrusive option that balanced the needs of the residential landowners and the agricultural property.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed four decisions of AgriCorp regarding his crop insurance for his vineyard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2022 Grape Vine Rider claim, finding that vines dying after the coverage period ended were not eligible.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the 2023 Grape Coverage, finding the appellant could not challenge the policy terms after accepting them.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2023 Grape Production claim, finding the loss was caused by powdery mildew (an excluded peril) rather than excessive rainfall.

Finally, the Tribunal upheld AgriCorp's cancellation of the 2024 policy because the appellant breached the contract by denying AgriCorp access to his property.

The appellants appealed the final engineer's report for the proposed Frank Szeder Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the project was delayed excessively and the proposed design was flawed and too costly.

The Tribunal found that while the 12-year delay was excessive, the appellants failed to provide evidence that the proposed drainage work was technically flawed or that the costs outweighed the benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the engineer's report, but limited the chargeable engineering costs to $108,130 to account for the excessive delay.

L’Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal to continue receiving special funding under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions and supporting affidavit, noting no objections were received.

Finding that the applicant fulfilled the statutory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered special funding to continue for a five-year period expiring on September 1, 2030.

Several landowners appealed their assessments for the maintenance and repair of the Harrop Municipal Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that their lands did not benefit from the drain, and that the Hagersville Wastewater Treatment Plant should bear 100% of the maintenance costs.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's engineer, who used the Todgham Method and LiDAR data to determine the drainage area and outlet liability.

The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate the appellants' claims or to support an alternate assessment methodology.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding whether a property should be designated in the Farm Property Class for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years.

The property owners had missed deadlines to submit applications due to ownership changes following a death.

The Assessment Review Board had previously extended the time for filing appeals under section 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Tribunal found that the Board's order extending the time to appeal cured any procedural defects or missed deadlines by the property owners.

As the substantive requirements for the Farm Property Class were met, the Tribunal ordered the property to be designated in the Farm Property Class for the relevant years and awarded costs against the Administrator.

The Appellant appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the Hewitt's Creek Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits were not commensurate with costs, the works should be modified, and his allowance was inadequate.

At the hearing, the Appellant requested an adjournment, which was denied due to ample prior time and failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The Appellant subsequently refused to present any evidence or be sworn in.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence of the Engineer, the Tribunal found the benefits commensurate with costs, declined to modify the works, and found the allowance reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by St. Brigid's Dairy Ltd. regarding a request for 2023 incentive days and changes to DFO policies.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal regarding the 2023 incentive days, finding it was filed out of time, the appellant had previously abandoned an identical appeal, and the claim for financial compensation was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and therefore frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims without a hearing because the appellant failed to first apply to the DFO board for a hearing as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The appellants appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Hostine Drain East Branch.

The Tribunal considered whether one of the appellants had standing to appeal under section 54 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that standing under section 54 requires the appellant to have been a party to the appeal before the court of revision.

Because the appellant was not an owner of land assessed for the drainage works, she could not have been a party before the court of revision.

Consequently, her appeal was dismissed for lack of standing.

The appellant sought $1,000 in costs against a non-party and a newly added party for an improperly brought motion to be added as a party to a drainage appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs, finding no authority to award costs against a non-party and concluding that the added party's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.

The Tribunal noted that costs should only be ordered in the most egregious circumstances, which were not present here.

The appellant brought a motion for an order directing the respondent municipality and third parties to produce various planning and environmental documents related to lands within the watershed of a proposed drain.

The appellant argued the documents were necessary to evaluate the drain's impact on its property.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to provide evidentiary foundation, such as expert affidavit evidence, to prove the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issues of flow and contamination on the appeal.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the construction of the Desroches Municipal Drain across their farm.

They claimed damages for crop loss and site cleanup, alleging the contractor commenced work in wet conditions contrary to an agreed-upon start date, failed to separate topsoil, and enlarged the working corridor.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of an agreed start date and concluding that the construction and site restoration were completed in accordance with the Engineer's Report.

The Tribunal also noted that several of the appellants' claims regarding the drain's design and crop damage allowances should have been appealed earlier under section 48 of the Act.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals under s. 48(1) and s. 54(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements to the drain were being undertaken pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act, which does not require a petition from landowners.

The Tribunal concluded that the s. 48(1) appeal did not meet the statutory criteria and dismissed both appeals without a hearing, granting the appellants participant status instead.