Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

The applicant consulting engineers requested a modification to a municipal by-law concerning the Malott Diversion Drain to reduce a land allowance and incorporate aquatic habitat enhancements required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The affected landowner consented to the reduction and the municipality supported the changes.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, finding that adequate notice had been given and no affected parties objected.

The appellant, a processing tomato grower, had its 1999 production licence restricted to 300 tons as a penalty for marketing from unmeasured acreage in 1998.

In 1999, a relative of the appellant secured a new grower contract for 1,000 tons.

The respondent Board found that the appellant performed all the field work and effectively produced the relative's crop, thereby circumventing its licence restrictions.

The Board consequently refused to issue the appellant a licence for 2000.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding on a balance of probabilities that the appellant engaged in an arrangement to contravene its 1999 licence conditions, justifying the Board's refusal to issue a 2000 licence.

The County of Elgin appealed an engineer's report regarding the Greer Drains #1 and #2 Outlets under the Drainage Act.

The County argued that the proposed 2-year storm design standard was excessive and that the assessments charged to the County for outlet and benefit were disproportionately high.

The Tribunal found that the proposed design, which accommodated the entire storm flow in the tile drain, was unnecessary and directed the engineer to reconsider the design to utilize the combined capacity of the tile and the existing grassed waterway.

The Tribunal also found that the benefit assessment to the County road was too high and that upstream properties relieved of drainage problems should be assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal ordered the report to be referred back to the engineer for reconsideration and adjustment of the assessments.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying a crop insurance claim for its 1999 Spanish onion crop.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement for $54,223.30.

The Tribunal endorsed the settlement and allowed the appeal to the extent of the settlement amount.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal to resolve a dispute with the respondent regarding interest owed on returned parts following the termination of a dealership agreement.

The applicant claimed interest under the Farm Implements Act for three specific items.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay interest on two of the items, finding that the parts should have been accepted under the Act's repurchase provisions and that a credit application was submitted on time.

The Tribunal denied interest on the third item, a damaged conditioner roller, finding the principal payment was a settlement concession rather than a statutory repurchase.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the Bartlett Creek Municipal Drain Downstream Section under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued the report was incomplete, the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, and their individual assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeal, finding the report complete and the benefits commensurate with the costs.

The Tribunal partially granted the section 54 appeal, ordering modifications to the assessment schedules to properly account for special benefits and to remove certain prior consulting and carrying charges from the project's estimated costs.

Costs of $750 were awarded against two of the appellants for bringing a frivolous appeal.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a modification to a township by-law concerning the repair and improvement of the Travis Drain.

Following the adoption of an engineer's report, a property owner requested a change in the culvert end treatment from rip-rap to pre-cast concrete headwalls, agreeing to pay the increased cost as a special benefit assessment.

The Tribunal exercised its authority under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, ordering the municipal clerk to insert specific modifying language and to notify affected owners of their right to appeal.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the repair of the Edgar Sideroad Drain.

The engineer had based the assessments on a 1979 report but later provided a revised schedule that changed almost every property's assessment.

The appellants and other assessed owners raised concerns about the calculation of cut-off benefits, watershed boundaries, and the distribution of costs.

The engineer acknowledged errors and requested the report be referred back.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer for reconsideration under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, with specific recommendations for the revised report, and ordered that the engineering costs for the revision and hearing not be charged to the drainage project.

Several landowners and municipalities appealed the engineer's report and Court of Revision decisions regarding the Séguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain.

The appellants challenged the assessments, the allowances for land taken and damages, and the proposed alignment of the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the specific appeals but ordered modifications to the engineer's report, including relocating a portion of the drain, adjusting land allowances, and directing that the cost of the road crossing be charged to the road authority pursuant to section 26 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Director of Regulatory Compliance not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a milk sample taken from their farm.

The sample tested positive for Penicillin G, resulting in a penalty of $2,601.12.

The appellants argued the sample was not representative of their milk and pointed to inconsistencies in testing for other drugs.

The Tribunal found that sample integrity was maintained, the official test confirmed the presence of penicillin, and the appellants had a cow being treated with penicillin at the time.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, holding that producers must accept responsibility for the quality of milk produced on their farm.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that revoked his licence to produce tobacco and cancelled his 10,000 pounds of Basic Production Quota and 1999 Marketing Quota.

The appellant had previously pled guilty to Excise Act charges for selling tobacco to an unlicensed buyer.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the Basic Production Quota but allowed the appellant to market his 1999 marketing quota, finding that he had a reasonable expectation to market his 1998 carryover crop.

The City of Port Colborne applied to the Tribunal requesting a modification to a municipal by-law concerning the relocation of a portion of the Wignell W2 Municipal Drain.

The proposed work, undertaken entirely at the cost of a local quarry, would relocate the drain to fit into the final quarry configuration and rehabilitation plan.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, directing the engineer to amend the report and the city clerk to replace the relevant drawings and notify affected persons.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the 8th Concession East Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the Minutes of Settlement, which amended the assessment schedule and relocated a borrow pit, and ordered the engineer and the municipality to modify the report, tender documents, and by-law accordingly.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) refusing to hold a hearing regarding the cancellation of his processor's live chicken supply and the resulting cancellation of his production contracts.

The appellant argued he was aggrieved because he would have difficulty finding a new processor for his heavy roaster chickens in future quota periods.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the CFO was within its statutory rights to deny a hearing and had already provided sufficient accommodation by allowing the appellant to adjust his production and marketing for the immediate quota period.

Appellants appealed the engineer's report for the Foreman Municipal Drain Improvement under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the assessment of costs for Green Lane Environmental, finding the original outlet and benefit assessments unfair, and ordered modifications to the working width on their property.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals seeking to divert the drain out of the watershed and to increase the allowance for land used, finding the proposed alignment and agricultural land valuation appropriate.

The Tribunal also directed modifications to relocate a portion of the drain on another property and ordered the municipality to pay the actual increased costs resulting from the presence of a municipal road.

The appellants, tobacco farmers facing criminal charges for illegal tobacco sales, applied to the marketing board for an extension of time to apply for spring rental of their marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of their quota.

The board denied the requests, citing the pending charges and the inability to determine if the appellants were in good standing.

The Tribunal found that the board's decision was unfair, as other producers facing similar charges were allowed to continue producing and marketing tobacco.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and allowed the appellants to rent out the standard 30% of their quota, but denied the request to rent out 100%, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the exemption.

The appellant, a tobacco producer facing unresolved criminal charges for alleged unlawful sale of tobacco, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from the General Regulation 1999-2000.

The appellant sought an extension of the deadline to apply for spring rental of his marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of his quota rather than the standard 30% limit.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted unfairly by treating the appellant differently from other producers facing similar charges who were allowed to continue producing.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the 30% spring rental but denied the request to rent out 100% of the quota, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the latter exemption.

The appellants, organic egg producers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Egg Producers denying their request to sell 450 units of basic production quota.

The quota had been allotted to them in 1989 by a Tribunal decision on a non-transferable, non-saleable basis.

The appellants argued that, like another producer in a previous case, they had demonstrated a long-term commitment to the industry and should be allowed to sell the quota.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, distinguishing the previous case on the basis that the appellants had not purchased the quota when they began production, and found no sufficient reason to interfere with the Board's decision.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Walker Drain, Branch 'B' in the Township of West Elgin.

The appellants argued that the anticipated benefits of the proposed drainage works were not commensurate with the estimated costs and challenged their respective assessments.

The Tribunal found that the project was necessary to address flooding issues and that the administrative costs, while high, were largely due to the ratepayers' own requests for meetings and revisions.

The Tribunal confirmed the engineer's assessments, finding them appropriate given the natural drainage patterns and the benefits provided by the new drain.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report concerning the relocation and repair of the Harkness Drain, arguing that the allowances for damages and tree removal were insufficient and that the drain should not be moved off the road allowance.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to relocate the drain to accommodate road improvements but found that the Road Authority was not assessed enough for the benefit it received.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be amended to increase the special benefit assessment to the Township, increase the allowances for right-of-way and damages for the appellants, modify the piping requirements, and recalculate the allowances for tree removal.