OAFRAAT 2026

The Appellants, dairy farmers whose farm was placed in receivership, appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying exemptions to quota policies that would allow the farm to be sold as an ongoing operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that the Appellants lacked sufficient interest in the subject matter.

The Tribunal held that the Receiver had sole authority over the farm assets and the decision to appeal, and the Appellants could not establish a sufficient financial or legal interest to pursue the appeal in their personal capacity.

The appellant appealed a municipal drainage report under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits of the proposed works were not commensurate with the estimated costs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed erosion and sediment control works would benefit the drainage area, the works were not currently required and were deferred to an undetermined future date.

Consequently, assessing properties now for the engineering fees of possible future improvements was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the municipality to pay 50% of the engineering fees out of general funds.

The applicant applied for an order waiving the requirement to obtain a farming business registration number and make a payment to an accredited farm organization based on his religious convictions.

He argued that his beliefs in 'Sphere Sovereignty' and 'Impartiality' prevented him from supporting organizations that advocate for supply management and risk management programs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's convictions were genuinely held, religious in nature, and the actual cause of his objection.

The application for a religious exemption was granted.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessment for the reconstruction of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that they had already paid for a previous drain improvement in 2014 that met their needs, and that the new drain primarily benefited upstream landowners by providing a deeper outlet.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellants' expert that the benefit assessment should consider the area of lands receiving benefit rather than just the length of the drain on each property.

The Tribunal ordered a 50% reduction in the appellants' benefit assessment, reallocating the costs pro-rata among the other assessed lands.

The appellants appealed a drainage report concerning the Hostine Drain East Branch under the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a full uncontested settlement, contingent on the appellants obtaining approval for a subsequent connection to the main drain.

After the approval was obtained, the Tribunal issued a consent order amending the drainage report in accordance with an addendum, directing the municipal clerk to give effect to the amended report, and allocating engineering costs.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for the improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The report proposed removing a retaining wall on the appellants' property that had recently been reconstructed under an emergency designation by the Minister.

The Tribunal found that the emergency reconstruction was not supervised by an engineer as required by the Minister's condition, and the current engineer's report failed to properly analyze whether the wall could be incorporated into the drainage works.

The Tribunal set aside the engineer's report and ordered a new report to be prepared at the municipality's expense.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision which increased its municipal drain assessment by $38,300 for the supersizing of a road culvert.

The appellant argued that its property is actively farmed, not ready for industrial development, and does not benefit from the supersized culvert designed for downstream industrial properties.

The engineer who prepared the drainage report agreed that the original assessment of $9,007 for the open drain was appropriate and that the appellant should not be assessed for the culvert supersizing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reducing the culvert assessment to zero, noting that if the property is developed in the future, it can be reassessed under section 65(3) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants appealed the compensation and special benefit assessments under the Drainage Act regarding a proposed municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that the compensation for insufficient outlet was inadequate because the engineer calculated the corridor length based on an arbitrary termination point rather than the actual distance to a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal increased the compensation from $5,690 to $9,653.

The Tribunal also found that the $5,510 special benefit assessment against the appellants for additional engineering investigations was unjust, as the onus is on the upper lands to justify an insufficient outlet.

Both appeals were granted.

The moving party, an unrepresented landowner, brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal under section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding the relocation of a municipal drain through his agricultural lands.

The municipality opposed the motion, arguing the appeal should have been brought under section 47 and was therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that a realignment of a proposed drain falls under section 48.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time to appeal, the Tribunal found that the two-and-a-half-week delay was minimal, there was no significant prejudice to the municipality as other appeals were still in early stages, and the proposed appeal had some merit.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision not to proceed with a request for drainage improvements under section 78 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction because subsection 78(4) only contemplates appeals after an engineer's report has been prepared.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) brought a motion for party status in an appeal under the Drainage Act concerning drainage works on the appellant's lands.

The appellant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that UTRCA's intervention as a party was premature, consistent with a previous decision involving the same parties, because the engineer's report appealed from was not a report concerning the construction of drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for party status but exercised its discretion to add UTRCA as a Participant with limited rights.

The appellants sought an extension of time under s. 100 of the Drainage Act to pursue a late appeal from an engineer’s report concerning a municipal drain.

The Tribunal held that use of the wrong generic notice form and citation to the wrong statutory provision was not fatal where the written materials clearly disclosed an intended appeal under s. 48(1) and satisfied the Tribunal’s procedural rule for commencing an appeal.

Applying the Tribunal’s four-factor extension test adopted from court practice, the Tribunal found a bona fide intention to appeal within time, no non-speculative prejudice to the municipality, a delay explained by the appellants’ mistaken pursuit of relief before the Court of Revision, and sufficient merit because the proposed grounds were recognized statutory grounds and not frivolous.

The extension was granted retroactive to the original filing date, Linda Horton was added as an appellant, and the municipality’s request to restrict the appeal grounds was refused on this motion.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Court of Revision confirming an Engineer's Report regarding the Ronson Municipal Drain.

The appellants conceded that the drainage works were required but argued that the benefit derived was not commensurate with the cost, and that neighbouring properties should have been assessed for a benefit because surface water flowed from those properties onto the appellants' land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the construction and engineering costs were reasonable and commensurate with the benefit.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, who concluded that only the appellants' property would benefit from the drainage works, over the appellants' expert, who had not conducted independent investigations and lacked experience with the Drainage Act.