Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

The municipality sought costs against the appellant following the dismissal of his appeal regarding a municipal drain.

The municipality argued the appellant's conduct was frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate that the appellant acted in a clearly unreasonable fashion, noting that part of his appeal had actually been granted.

The request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the Darmar-Tamlin Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

At the start of the hearing, both parties noted that the adopted report was missing several mandatory elements, including a watershed map, stamped drawings, cost estimates, and a maintenance schedule.

The Tribunal found that these omissions constituted a significant error that failed to comply with section 8 of the Act.

Relying on its broad powers under section 51(1), the Tribunal issued an interim order adjourning the hearing and referring the report back to the engineer with specific directions to revise it to include the omitted items.

The Tribunal also extended the appellant's time to appeal under sections 48 and 54 to cure any process defects.

The City of Sarnia applied to the Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend a by-law governing the Clark Drain and Branches.

During construction of a pump station, asbestos was discovered in the existing building, leading to delays and a redesign that replaced the planned building with an outdoor station and weatherproof enclosures.

The Tribunal found that the modifications did not negatively impact the drainage works' capacity or cost apportionment, and granted the application to amend the by-law to reflect the as-constructed drawings.

Several landowners appealed an Engineer's Report proposing the enclosure of portions of the Switzer Drain and McLean Switzer Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drainage works were primarily designed to accommodate one landowner's request to close a drain, which would reduce the functionality and capacity of the municipal drain for upstream properties.

The Tribunal held that the Engineer failed to meet his duties under section 11 of the Drainage Act by proposing impractical and technically flawed works that did not adhere to the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Engineer's Report was set aside and the adopting by-law was ordered repealed.

The applicant municipality applied to the Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend a bylaw for a municipal drain.

During construction, existing utilities were found in different locations than shown on the original plans, necessitating design changes in the field.

The Tribunal found the modifications did not negatively impact the drain's functionality, level of service, or cost, and ordered the bylaw amended to incorporate the as-built drawings.

The appellant appealed his drainage assessment under the Drainage Act, arguing that his land's designation as a provincially significant wetland constituted a change in use warranting a reduction in his assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the statutory threshold for an appeal because his assessment amount had not changed.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held that a change in environmental designation did not constitute a change in the extent to which the lands used the drainage works.

Requests for abandonment of the drain and future damages were also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to follow statutory procedures.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report for a municipal drain under the Drainage Act, raising concerns about ditchbank erosion, pesticide buffer zones, and historical notes on the drainage drawings.

The Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the municipality to seed the ditchbanks to prevent erosion.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to relocate the drain, finding it was not a sensitive freshwater habitat requiring pesticide buffer zones, and retained the historical notes on the drawings with minor wording modifications.

The appellant appealed the assessment for the Miller Drain 2016 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the assessment reduced or altered.

The appellant had requested that the open ditch crossing his property be enclosed.

The appointed engineer prepared a report recommending the enclosure of the drain on the appellant's property and assessed the costs accordingly.

The appellant argued the costs should be dealt with as in the past but provided no details on an acceptable assessment.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the assessments were fair and reasonable, noting the report reflected the appellant's request and a prior Tribunal order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the drain was over-designed, an earth berm was improperly designed, a private drain was illegal, and their lands should not be assessed.

The Tribunal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the design standards appropriate and the private drain legal.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the engineer's report be modified to include a compacted clay key in the earth berm design and to plug an existing tile beneath the berm to properly support wetland development.

The appellants appealed the benefit assessment levied against their property for a municipal drainage project.

The Tribunal reviewed the revised Engineer's Report and found that the proposed drainage works, including a closed pipe and open drain, would significantly improve the property's drainage and increase its value.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefit assessment of $359 was fair and reasonable, confirmed the Engineer's Report, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the revised drainage assessments for their agricultural property under the Drainage Act following two property severances.

The Town had directed the engineer to revise the assessment schedule to reflect the severances, which resulted in a disproportionate assessment per acre for the appellants compared to a similar neighbouring property.

The Tribunal found the engineer's revised assessment was not fair or transparent, as the engineer could not explain the anomalous results or the precise application of his proximity and envelope concepts.

The appeal was granted, and the Tribunal re-balanced the assessments among the severed properties based on the original schedule.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's report for the Royal Oak Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, challenging the costs and necessity of certain proposed works, including hydro seeding, riffles, Flexamat erosion control, tree removal, and farm crossings.

The Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering modifications to the report to require hand seeding on flat areas, the use of the lowest-costing Flexamat-type product, the removal of an at-grade crossing on one appellant's property, and consideration of an allowance for loss of access.

The Tribunal otherwise upheld the report's recommendations, finding the proposed works necessary and technically sound.

The appellants appealed the assessment applied to their property for the improvement and maintenance of a municipal drain under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

They argued their property was underdrained out of the watershed area and received no benefit from the drain.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the property had a three-metre fall directing surface water toward the drain, indirectly providing an improved outlet.

The Tribunal found the assessment, which had already been reduced by 50% to account for the portion drained out of the watershed, to be fair and reasonable.

The appeal was denied.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing an engineer to amend a drainage report, the appellant appealed the revised assessments.

At the hearing, the appellant presented no evidence challenging the assessments, instead attempting to relitigate the previously decided issue of how excavated material should be divided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process.

Finding the hearing unnecessary, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs to both the municipality and the co-appellant.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of the McClure Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the watershed area, the Benefit/Outlet cost splits, the treatment of two culverts, and the allowances provided.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's methodology for the cost splits and the watershed area, noting it was based on detailed field investigations.

However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the easterly culvert should be classified as an erosion control feature and the westerly culvert as the primary access to the appellant's lands.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be revised to incorporate these culverts into the drain and adjust the Special Benefit assessment for the westerly culvert accordingly.

The appeal was granted in part.

The appellants appealed the special benefit assessments levied against their properties for the replacement of access bridges and the restoration of their asphalt driveways as part of a municipal drain improvement project.

The Tribunal found that the need to replace the bridges was entirely due to increased flows from upstream residential development that lacked proper stormwater management.

Consequently, the Tribunal granted the appeals, removing the special benefit assessments from the appellants' properties and redistributing the costs to the upstream non-agricultural lands and the municipal road authorities.

The applicant municipality sought permission under s. 76 of the Drainage Act to procure an engineer's report to vary the existing assessment schedule for an inter-municipal drain.

The evidence showed approximately 200 severances and land divisions within the watershed since the original 1981 report, rendering the current assessment schedule outdated and inequitable for maintenance levies.

The neighbouring municipality supported the application.

The Tribunal held that the statutory requirements were met and granted permission to appoint an engineer and obtain a report varying the current by-law assessments.

Seven chicken producers appealed a decision by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) denying compensation for losses resulting from a quarantine imposed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The CFO brought a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, which included out-of-pocket expenses and lost profits.

The majority of the Tribunal granted the motion in part, finding it had no statutory authority to award compensatory damages or lost profits arising from the quarantine.

However, the Tribunal found it did have jurisdiction to hear claims regarding over and under marketing levies and penalties.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the Pilkington Drain, the respondent Municipality sought full indemnity costs of $23,594.21, arguing the appeal was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found the appellants' conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.

The Tribunal declined to make a direct costs award against the appellants, instead ordering that the Municipality's costs form part of the cost of the drainage works to be assessed proportionately among all property owners on the drain, in accordance with standard practice under the Drainage Act.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Engineer's Report for Branch 'G' of the Dell Municipal Drain in the Municipality of Central Elgin.

The appellants challenged the assessments and the delineation of the watershed boundary.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's definition of the watershed area but found that a maintenance schedule was missing from the Report.

The Tribunal also found that the Lyle property received a cut-off benefit for its entire area and amended the assessment schedule accordingly.

The appeals of Somerville, Zovko, and 806584 Ontario Ltd. were granted in part, while the Lyles' appeal was dismissed.