Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

The appellants, landowners in an upstream agricultural area, appealed an engineer's report concerning the Baxter Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act.

They argued that the costs of enclosing a section of the drain in an urban area were not commensurate with the benefits, and expressed concern about future liability for maintenance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the intangible benefits of the project outweighed the costs and noting that the vast majority of assessed owners supported the project.

However, the Tribunal ordered that a new assessment schedule be prepared before any future maintenance costs for the piped sections are levied against the upstream agricultural lands.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances provided by the engineer for a municipal drain, arguing their lands did not contribute runoff to the drain and that the assessments were excessive.

The Court of Revision had slightly reduced their assessments.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' lands did contribute to the drain and that the engineer's calculations were appropriate.

The Tribunal set aside the Court of Revision's decision, restored the engineer's original assessments, and ordered the appellants to pay costs for pursuing an appeal without reasonably informing themselves of the assessment principles.

The Township of Proton applied to the Tribunal to modify By-Law 12-1996 regarding the Samborsky Drainage Works.

Construction of the municipal drain inadvertently diverted water from a private spring, cutting off the water supply to a neighbouring trout pond.

The Township deepened an existing private drain to restore the flow at a cost of $1,037.73.

The Tribunal ordered that this cost be added to the final levy for the drainage works and clarified that the deepened drain remains private, with no future maintenance obligation for the municipality.

The appellant, a tobacco producer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board denying his request to institute a policy of pooling the proceeds of sale of tobacco by grade.

The appellant argued that the current system, where prices fluctuate based on the day of sale, is inequitable.

The Board maintained that price pooling would remove incentives for quality production and should not be implemented without consensus from the Tobacco Industry Advisory Committee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that a significant number of producers supported the proposed change to the marketing system.

The appellant appealed the denial of a crop insurance claim under the onion crop insurance plan.

The respondent argued, as a preliminary jurisdictional objection, that the alleged loss occurred in storage, was not reported before harvest, was not available for inspection before harvest, and exceeded the insured quantity.

The tribunal held that those objections were founded on factual allegations that required an evidentiary hearing and did not clearly oust jurisdiction at the preliminary stage.

The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied, and the appeal was permitted to proceed in the ordinary course.

Three assessed ratepayers applied to the Tribunal to reconsider its July 2, 1996 decision regarding the W.W. Turner Pumping Works on the Whitebread Tap Drain.

The applicants argued that evidence was misunderstood and sought to present new evidence, including a 1997 cost estimate for replacing a tunnel.

The Tribunal applied its four-part test for rehearings, considering the integrity of the process, the interest in correct decisions, finality, and costs.

Finding that the request was made over a year late and failed to provide new information unavailable at the original hearing, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed his assessment under the Drainage Act for work on the Mud Creek and Sutherland Drain.

He argued that the $8,350 assessed against his property as a benefit for bank stabilization and rip-rap installation should instead be charged to upstream owners as an injuring liability, claiming the erosion was caused by increased water flow from upstream tile drainage.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the benefit assessment was fair and that the appellant received a special benefit from the specific work requested to prevent land loss.

The Township of Euphemia applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Bolton Drain.

The Township of Mosa confirmed it had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application and permitted the appointment of an engineer.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Coultis Drain under the Drainage Act.

At the hearing, the engineer who prepared the report advised that the channel had significantly eroded since the design was completed, rendering the proposed work inadequate and requiring a complete redesign with substantially higher costs.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to an engineer for further consideration.

Because the engineers for both sides failed to communicate these known issues in a timely manner prior to the hearing, the Tribunal ordered that the costs of the hearing not be added to the cost of the drainage works, and made no order as to costs.

The Township of Orford applied to modify an engineer's report regarding the Grant Drain to enclose a 65-metre extension in a pipe due to potential erosion of sandy soils.

The Road Authority agreed to assume the additional costs.

The Tribunal granted the application under section 51 of the Drainage Act, ordering the engineer to prepare new specifications and the Township to modify the bylaw, subject to a 14-day appeal period for affected landowners.

Several assessed landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works were too extensive and that their assessments were disproportionate to the benefits received.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's 50% benefit and 50% outlet assessment division, finding it fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal declined to eliminate the proposed pumping station but ordered minor modifications to the report, including the addition of a high-water alarm system and the removal of a specific culvert.

The appeals were largely dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report on the MacLaren Drain, challenging the expansion of the watershed boundary and the resulting assessments for repair and maintenance.

The appellants argued that their lands did not benefit from or contribute significantly to the drain, and that the municipality should bear costs for redirecting water.

The Tribunal found that the expanded watershed accurately reflected lands contributing water to the drain.

Although the Tribunal noted the engineer's methodology for calculating assessments and failing to provide Section 29 allowances was not in accordance with prevailing practices, it concluded the final assessments were within an appropriate range.

The appeals were dismissed, and the report was confirmed with minor typographical amendments.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Egg Producers' Marketing Board denying their request for an exemption from Quota Policy #2.

The appellants sought to sell 90% of their pullet quota calculated on the past two years' utilization rather than the required five years' utilization, citing the poor condition of their recently purchased barn and the cost of refurbishing.

The Tribunal found no compelling reasons to make an exception to the policy, noting the new policy provided a better opportunity than the one existing when the appellants purchased the premises.

The appeal was denied.

The Township of Zone applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the North Branch Butler Drain.

The Township of Euphemia did not object.

The Tribunal granted the application and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Several landowners appealed their benefit assessments for the proposed Foster Crescent Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued their assessments were disproportionate to the benefits received, citing factors such as property elevation and lack of flooding.

The Tribunal found that the engineer's method of distributing benefit costs based on property size was generally equitable given the history of lot filling in the area.

However, the Tribunal reduced the assessments for two properties due to their elevation and position in the watershed, and correspondingly increased the assessment against the Town's road allowance, which was found to be under-assessed.

The remaining appeals were dismissed.

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for an order to modify a municipal by-law adopting an engineer's report for the Goff Drain.

During construction, problems were encountered resulting in changes to the project, which were detailed in an addendum report.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments on terms, directing the engineer to amend the addendum and plan to reflect the 'as constructed' details, and ordering the Township to modify and circulate the by-law accordingly.

The appellants appealed a decision of AgriCorp concerning a crop insurance claim for corn.

As a preliminary matter, the parties asked the Tribunal to rule on whether AgriCorp had the legal authority to revise a final acreage report after it had been filed and the premium paid.

The Tribunal ruled that under Regulation 222, AgriCorp has a reasonable period of time to review and revise the final acreage report, subject to the insured's right to object.

Following this ruling, the appellants withdrew the balance of their appeal.

The appellant, Robert Meersseman, appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission denying his request for a license to process vegetables in 1997.

The appellant had applied for a personal license after his company, Boneta Foods, was denied a license.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and Boneta Foods were indistinguishable for the purposes of obtaining a license, and that the personal application was an attempt to bypass the denial of the corporate license.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Township of Tilbury North applied to the Tribunal to modify an engineer's report and the corresponding by-law for the Klinger-Gaspard Drain and Pump.

A landowner's property had been incorrectly included in the watershed, necessitating a reduction in tile size and project costs.

The Tribunal exercised its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to order the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to conditions including the preparation of new drawings and the provision of notice to affected landowners.

The appellant appealed a decision by AgriCorp denying a crop insurance claim for soybeans.

AgriCorp brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the appellant harvested and was credited for more soybeans than the guaranteed production under the insurance contract, meaning there was no 'loss' to adjust.

Based on agreed facts, the Board found that the appellant delivered and was credited for more than the guaranteed amount.

Consequently, there was no insured loss, and the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 2 of Regulation 140/96.

The appeal was dismissed.