Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

The Appellants sought to appeal a drainage assessment to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Appellants had attended the Court of Revision and made oral submissions but had not filed a written appeal within the required timeframe, despite being advised of the option to file a late appeal.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the Appellants did not file an appeal with the Court of Revision, they were not parties to an appeal before it.

Consequently, under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellant, a mid-sized dairy processor, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to invoice it retroactively at the highest class price for milk deliveries after multiple audits found its production records unreliable and unverifiable.

The appellant argued that the retroactive invoice constituted an unauthorized penalty under the Milk Act and that DFO lacked authority to impose it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 24 of DFO General Regulation 10/17 authorizes DFO to charge the highest class price when a processor fails to provide verifiable milk utilization declarations.

The Tribunal also held that the surcharge was not a penalty but a mechanism to ensure fair compensation to dairy farmers.

Finally, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a prior settlement agreement between the parties.

The appellants appealed their assessments for the construction and future maintenance costs of the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain Phase 1 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments should be reduced or eliminated due to lack of benefit and alleged negligence by the municipality in managing drainage infrastructure.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the properties did benefit from the drainage works and that the assessments were fairly and reasonably calculated using the Todgham method.

The appellant, an inactive egg grading station and quota holder, appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) refusing to enact a 'directed marketing' policy that would require producers to market eggs to it.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had standing as an aggrieved person, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order EFO to exercise its discretionary delegated powers to create such a policy.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was vexatious and brought in bad faith, as it was pursued concurrently with civil litigation raising similar issues and alongside three other withdrawn appeals.

The appeal was dismissed without a hearing, and costs of $8,842.25 were awarded to the respondent.

This tribunal order set procedural directions for an electronic hearing of a municipal drain appeal under the Drainage Act.

The tribunal directed the parties to provide participant information, govern witness attendance and testimony by Zoom, and establish filing requirements for documentary evidence and engineer reports.

The order also addressed public access, objections during the proceeding, and technical requirements for participation.

The appellant brought a motion seeking disclosure of numerous documents related to the Smeltzer Drain 2020 project.

The Tribunal found that not all requested documents were relevant to the appeal.

The respondent confirmed which documents existed and agreed to a timeline for delivery.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the relevant documents to the appellant by a specified date.

The appellants appealed the assessments made in an Engineer's Report for the reconstruction of the Galbraith Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their property would not benefit from the proposed drain and that the watershed boundary had changed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the engineer who prepared the report, finding that the appellants would benefit from the removal of an open ditch and reduced surface water.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were fair and reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The Appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the proposed Noah Martin Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing a lack of procedural fairness, requesting the drain be relocated off his property, seeking explicit permission for future underdrainage connections, and claiming insufficient allowances.

The Tribunal found that statutory consultation processes were followed and accepted the engineer's proposed route.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised to explicitly state the drain has capacity for the Appellant's future underdrainage and increased the section 30 allowance for damages by $1,000 to account for additional fence crossings.

The appellants appealed the assessments in the Engineer's Report for the Highway 6 Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

Two of the appellants withdrew their appeals at the hearing.

The remaining appellants and the respondent municipality reached a consent agreement to reduce the outlet liability assessment for the appellants' property and correspondingly increase the benefit assessment for the municipal wastewater treatment plant.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report amended in accordance with the consent agreement.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties made oral submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the appeal should be dismissed before a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow, and set a schedule for written submissions on costs.

The appellant appealed the assessments in the Engineer's Report for the Paauw Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The parties reached a resolution and sought a consent order from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered corrections to the Engineer's Report and revised assessments for the appellant's property, setting aside the Court of Revision decision regarding the property.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate issues regarding the Early Egg Removal Program and Early Fowl Removal Program.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal because the appellant requested an order directed to it.

The motion was granted, and the OFPMC was granted participant status.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party, and consequently qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.

The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (OFPMC) brought a motion for participant status in an appeal by Sweda Farms Ltd. against the Egg Farmers of Ontario.

The appellant sought an order directing the OFPMC to investigate certain issues.

The Tribunal found that the OFPMC had a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal to be named a party and therefore qualified to be named as a participant.

The motion was granted.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report for the Michener Municipal Drain, arguing that the proposed works should be paused until improvements to the downstream Wignell Drain were completed to prevent exacerbated flooding on his golf course.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Wignell Drain currently lacks sufficient capacity to act as an outlet for the increased flow from the Michener Drain.

The Tribunal ordered that the Michener Drain works be paused until the Wignell Drain report and necessary outlet improvements are completed.

The appellant's request to reduce engineering costs was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as no prerequisite appeal had been made to the Court of Revision.

The moving parties brought a motion requesting an extension of time to file an appeal under Section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding a municipal drain.

The municipality opposed the motion, arguing prejudice as drainage work had already commenced under an emergency authorization.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had a bona fide intention to appeal, the municipality would be prejudiced, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as it misunderstood the purpose and scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessments allocated to his properties under section 54 of the Drainage Act regarding the Switzer Drain.

The appellant argued that the project primarily benefited another property owner and that his assessments were unfair, particularly given a previous cleanout he funded.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the municipal engineer, who used a modified Todgham Method to calculate the assessments, and found that the assessments were fair, reasonable, and in compliance with the Drainage Act.

The appeal was denied.

At a pre-hearing conference in a municipal drain matter, the Tribunal considered whether to accept an appeal purportedly brought under s. 54 of the Drainage Act from the Court of Revision.

The Tribunal held that the moving landowners had not filed an appeal to the Court of Revision and did not dispute their assessment, so there was no appealable decision under s. 54.

The concerns raised to the Court of Revision were outside that body's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal therefore declined to accept the appeal, while indicating that any further challenge to the drainage report would have to proceed, if at all, by a late motion seeking an extension of time for an appeal under ss. 48 and 100.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act, challenging the assessment of costs for the replacement and maintenance of a privately installed culvert (Culvert 8).

The appellant argued the culvert was merely for the convenience of the downstream landowner to access its bisected properties and was not rendered necessary by the drainage works.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the culvert was not necessary for the drain itself and that the downstream properties had alternative road access.

The appeal was granted, and the costs for the culvert were ordered to be assessed entirely to the downstream landowner as a special benefit under section 24 of the Drainage Act.

The applicant municipality applied under s. 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the Schedule of Assessment for a municipal drain.

The schedule had not been updated since 1966, and numerous severances had occurred without apportionments.

The respondent municipality did not oppose the application.

The Tribunal found that conditions had changed justifying a variation and granted the application.