Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

This tribunal decision arose from a pre-hearing conference in an appeal challenging licence cancellations, quota cancellations, sale requirements for remaining quota, and related production-credit consequences imposed by a dairy marketing body.

The parties identified the principal issues as whether the impugned regulation was stayed by prior appeals and whether the penalties and alleged representations concerning an undertaking were appropriate.

The tribunal recorded agreements respecting witness disclosure, will-say statements, and documentary production, and made a procedural order setting deadlines for disclosure and filing before the hearing.

The merits of the appeal were not decided.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report on the Foster Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the municipality to refer the report to a new engineer for reconsideration.

The new engineer was ordered to re-establish drainage boundaries, provide for the abandonment of certain branches, provide current profiles, and design upgrades to the Main West Drain or its abandonment.

The Tribunal also made orders regarding the apportionment of costs incurred to date.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp denying his claim for an Unseeded Acreage Benefit (USAB) for 958 acres of crops.

The appellant argued he was unable to plant due to excessive moisture and claimed eligibility based on his 2000 crop year.

Agricorp denied the claim because the appellant failed to report his inability to plant before the deadline and planted 290 acres of soybeans late, which were ineligible for insurance.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, finding the appellant was eligible for USAB for 695 acres, minus 130 acres planted before the deadline and 290 acres planted after the deadline, resulting in a USAB entitlement for 275 acres.

The appellant, Georgian Bay Milk Company, appealed decisions by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission that effectively shut down its export milk business following a WTO ruling against Canada's commercial export milk mechanism.

The Tribunal found that the WTO did not rule on whether non-quota holders were subsidized and ordered the DFO and OFPMC to submit the appellant's proposed unsubsidized export milk program to the federal government for review.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant an interim exemption to continue operating and allowed its milk to be transported in segregated trucks.

The City of Kingston applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on the Central Pittsburgh Drain under section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The application was prompted by landowner concerns regarding maintenance costs and changing agricultural practices.

The Township of Leeds and Thousand Islands did not object, provided its landowners' assessments remained unaffected.

The Tribunal granted the application, noting that municipalities cannot impose conditions on the engineer's independent duties under section 11 of the Act.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report regarding the Hanna Municipal Drain, arguing against the proposed working space for maintenance on his property and suggesting alternative routes.

The Tribunal found the engineer's proposed design and route to be the only suitable one, but ordered the drain to follow a more southerly route across the appellant's property to minimize future development issues.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's calculations for the property allowance and ordered specific dimensions for the working space.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the Walker Drain Improvement.

The Tribunal considered three alternative routes for the drain.

It ordered the drain to be reconstructed generally along its original route (Alternative C), finding it to be the lowest cost functional solution.

The Tribunal also ordered the engineer to vary the assessment methodology, allocating 35-40% of statutory benefit to roads and 60-65% to residential lands, and allowed direct appeals to the Tribunal from the revised engineer's report.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the Engineer's Report regarding a municipal drain.

In a previous interim order, the Tribunal added the Province of Ontario as a party representing property owners in Quebec.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food submitted that the Tribunal lacked authority to do so.

The Tribunal affirmed its interim decision and ordered the parties to file written submissions on the proper method of assessing the costs of the drainage works attributable to lands in Quebec.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a pre-hearing motion to limit or define the scope of a stay resulting from an appeal by Georgian Bay Milk Company (GBMC).

GBMC brought a motion to require DFO to produce all relevant documents.

Canada Milk Inc. also requested to be added as a party.

The Tribunal denied Canada Milk Inc.'s request for party status, finding insufficient commonality with GBMC.

The Tribunal dismissed DFO's motion to limit the stay, finding that lifting it would cause irreparable harm to GBMC before the appeal could be heard on its merits.

The Tribunal ordered DFO to produce the requested documents and set a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The Municipality of Southwest Middlesex and an assessed landowner appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of the Elliott Municipal Drain.

The contractor installed the tile drain below the specified grade, reducing the freeboard at the outlet.

The Tribunal found that reconstructing the drain was impractical and ordered the municipality to amend the by-law to reflect the as-constructed condition.

The contractor was ordered to pay $1,000 for the increased cost of future maintenance and $1,600 for the engineer's costs associated with investigating the non-compliance.

The appellants appealed a decision by AGRICORP to deny them crop insurance coverage for five years and to require the repayment of previously settled claims due to alleged misrepresentation of crop yields.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal adopted the minutes of settlement, which rescinded the five-year ban and the repayment requirement, but rendered the appellants ineligible for crop insurance for the 2003 crop year.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario refusing to change its plan for complying with a WTO ruling on milk export practices.

The respondent brought a motion to limit the scope of the automatic stay of its decision, and the appellant requested an adjournment of the hearing.

On consent of both parties, the Tribunal ordered that the automatic stay be suspended as it affects these parties and granted the adjournment.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the revised engineer's report regarding the Klijn Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the proposed drainage works did not drain the total watershed and objected to special benefit assessments for engineering work on a proposed extension.

The Tribunal found that the drainage works described in the report were appropriate and that the engineer could not extend the drain upstream without a valid petition.

The Tribunal also upheld the assessments, finding them equitable and justified, and dismissed the appeals.

The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board brought a motion requesting the Tribunal refuse to hear an appeal by a tobacco grower regarding a request to transfer Basic Production Quota with marketing quota attached.

The Tribunal found that the grower had not completed the required quota transfer application forms, and therefore had not made an application for a hearing to the Board as required by subsection 16(5) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal concluded it had no authority to hear the appeal and granted the Board's motion.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to re-route a portion of the drain to avoid a conflict with the appellants' septic system.

At the hearing, another landowner requested a modification to shorten a proposed culvert on his property, which would reduce costs.

The Tribunal approved the minutes of settlement and ordered the engineer's report to be amended to reflect the re-routing and the shortened culvert, adjusting the cost and assessment schedules accordingly.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the reconstruction of the Rutherford Drain.

They argued the proposed works were unnecessary, the assessments were unfair, and the engineer acted unprofessionally by entering their property without observing bio-security signage.

The Tribunal found the engineer acted professionally and the works were necessary due to the undersized and aging drain.

However, the Tribunal modified the assessments, reducing the benefit assessment against the McDonald property and increasing it for other benefiting properties.

The appellant appealed a pricing order by the respondent marketing board that increased the price of live turkeys.

The appellant argued for a smaller price increase due to weak market conditions and lower processor margins.

The respondent justified the larger increase based on higher feed costs incurred by producers.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the increase in feed costs warranted the respondent's price increases and that the timing of the increase during the festive season would allow processors to pass costs onto customers.

The applicant municipality applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the maintenance assessments on four drains under section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The municipality cited changes in watersheds, municipal boundaries, and land use as reasons for updating the outdated assessment schedules.

The neighbouring municipality consented to the application.

The Tribunal granted the municipality permission to appoint an engineer to procure the reports.

The appellant, a tobacco grower, appealed decisions of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his requests to extend the deadline for kiln conversion grants, to rent out 100% of his 2002 marketing quota, and to reverse the reduction of his 2002 marketing quota.

The appellant argued that a financial dispute involving his parents' farm prevented him from planting a crop and converting his kilns on time.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant was treated no differently than other growers, the financial dispute was foreseeable, and the Board's rationale for restricting quota rentals to active growers was reasonable.

Two landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Nithburg Drain No. 2.

One appellant argued that the branch drain primarily benefited adjacent residential lots rather than his agricultural property, while the other objected to a drain stub on his property and its associated assessment.

The Tribunal found that the residential lots received more benefit from the branch drain than the agricultural property and ordered the assessments varied accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the drain stub on the second appellant's property to provide a legal outlet, but ordered the addition of a hickenbottom connection.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.