Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

The Town of Fort Erie applied to correct an engineer's report regarding the Zavitz Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal previously granted the appeal, ordered amendments to the report, and awarded compensation to a landowner, Mr. Clee, for property damage.

In this costs decision, the Tribunal determined the apportionment of costs.

The Tribunal awarded Mr. Clee his legal and consulting fees, and awarded the Town its engineering costs for the amended report.

The Tribunal ordered the City of Port Colborne to pay these costs out of its general funds, finding that the City's Drainage Superintendent caused the significant errors and that assessing the costs against the watershed would be inappropriate.

The applicant municipality sought an extension of time under section 100 of the Drainage Act to apply for a review of an engineer's account under section 72.

The account had been paid in 2016, but a 2017 Tribunal decision heavily criticized the engineer's report.

The municipality delayed until December 2018 to seek the extension.

The Tribunal denied the extension, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay between the 2017 decision and the 2018 application, and concluding that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent engineer.

The applicants requested a review of a final Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal regarding the apportionment of costs for repairs to a municipal drain.

The Vice-Chair considered the request under Rule 29 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and section 101 of the Drainage Act.

Finding no significant new evidence or material error of law or fact, and emphasizing the statutory principle of finality, the Vice-Chair concluded it was not advisable to permit a review hearing.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent requested a review of the Tribunal's Interim and Final Decisions regarding the Rose Beach Line Municipal Drain.

The Municipality raised several grounds, including the Tribunal's handling of an expert report and alleged procedural unfairness.

The Vice-Chair found no material errors of fact or law but concluded that a review was advisable due to two possible procedural fairness issues: the Tribunal potentially arriving at independent engineering conclusions without allowing parties to address them, and the Tribunal issuing a Final Decision based on a newly ordered coastal engineer's report without resuming the hearing for examination or submissions.

The initiating municipality applied to the Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to correct gross errors in an engineer's report for a municipal drain.

The proposed modifications included upgrading two culverts, adjusting a trail grade line, and relocating the working platform to the north side of the drain.

A landowner objected to the relocation of the working platform, as the municipality's drainage superintendent had already improperly directed a contractor to clear trees on his property contrary to the original approved report.

The Tribunal approved the engineering modifications as they did not adversely affect the drain's capacity.

However, the Tribunal ordered the municipality to pay the landowner $8,000 in compensation for the unauthorized removal of his tree buffer, which is not to be assessed to the drain's cost.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Esseltine Drain under sections 48 and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants, who own agricultural properties, argued that the proposed drainage works provided no benefit to their lands and that their assessments were disproportionately high compared to the urban and greenhouse developments contributing to the increased water flow and erosion.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent municipality's engineers, finding that the assessments were calculated using standard methodologies and were fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence to support modifying the Engineer's Report or the assessments, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Mullen Drain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding silt fencing, debris, ditch bottom elevations, standing water, and other construction details, but provided no engineering evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the drainage engineer that the drain was constructed according to the plans and specifications and was performing as designed.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove the drainage works were not constructed as designed.

The appellants appealed the proposed construction of an outlet structure for the Rose Beach Line Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

Following an interim decision requiring the Municipality to obtain an independent engineering report, the Municipality submitted a report from Landmark Engineers Inc. The Landmark Report identified significant shortcomings in the original Spriet Report's design, noting risks of damage from wave and ice forces and potential impacts on longshore sediment transport.

Given the substantial revisions required to address these issues, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the Spriet Report, and ordered the Municipality to bear its own engineering and legal costs.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Young and Hopf-Wagner Drains under the Drainage Act.

The appellants primarily challenged the adequacy of section 30 damage allowances for tree removal and the benefit assessments applied to their properties.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, increasing the damage allowance for one property and reducing the benefit assessment for another based on the Engineer's concessions.

The remaining appeals seeking higher compensation for tree removal were dismissed, as the Tribunal found the Engineer's allowances reasonable and noted the landowners retained the right to harvest the felled trees.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the St. John's Marsh Drain.

The appellant argued that the proposed abandonment of a section of the drain within conservation lands and the installation of a weir would exacerbate flooding on his agricultural lands.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's recommendation to abandon the unfindable section of the drain within the conservation lands but ordered the removal of the proposed Newbury Weir from the report to prevent further aggravation of the appellant's drainage issues.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain, the respondent Township sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had engaged in unreasonable conduct by reneging on a settlement agreement reached shortly before the hearing, which necessitated the hearing.

Applying its authority under the Drainage Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal awarded the Township costs of $5,822.89, representing the legal and engineering fees incurred after the appellant resiled from the settlement.

The appellant property owner appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging poor quality of construction of a municipal drain.

The appellant claimed the drain was installed at the wrong elevation and failed to properly connect with existing private lateral drains, seeking reimbursement for corrective work.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that a section 64 appeal strictly concerns whether the works were constructed as designed in the engineer's report.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert engineering evidence that the drain was constructed as designed, and noted the appellant failed to provide reliable evidence to the contrary.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the engineer erred in providing damage allowances for tree removal and disputed the watershed boundaries and runoff coefficients used to calculate assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence regarding the necessity of tree removal, the appropriateness of the allowances, and the accuracy of the topographical survey and runoff coefficients used for the assessments.

The applicant applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for re-accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence submitted by the applicant, including its incorporation, democratic election processes, membership numbers, financial statements, and support for local branches.

Finding that the applicant met all statutory and regulatory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered the applicant re-accredited for a period of three years.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including having a democratic board, representing a wide base of farming businesses, maintaining at least 250 supporter farming businesses, and providing education and advocacy.

The Tribunal granted the application and ordered the renewal of the applicant's accreditation for a three-year period.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the uncontradicted evidence and determined that the OFA satisfied all prescribed criteria under Ontario Regulation 723/93, including membership numbers, democratic processes, financial reporting, and advocacy efforts.

The Tribunal ordered the renewal of the OFA's accreditation for a three-year period commencing December 6, 2018.

The appellant appealed the benefit/outlet assessments for the Workman Municipal Drain 2018 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

He argued his assessment was too high compared to downstream properties and that upstream wetlands would receive an improved outlet.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over his other concerns regarding the need, design, and cost of the works, as he missed the deadline to appeal under section 48.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the assessments were developed using the modified Todgham method and were fair and equitable.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to an amendment to the engineer's report to include an inlet control device to ensure the upstream wetlands do not receive an improved outlet.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several individual complainants filed a complaint against MedReleaf Corp. under the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, 2002 (AEPA).

The complainants alleged that MedReleaf failed to provide the union a reasonable opportunity to make representations and thwarted attempts to organize through threats, intimidation, and coercion.

The Tribunal found that MedReleaf did not violate the AEPA.

MedReleaf had reasonably requested confirmation of the union's representational status, which the union refused to provide.

Furthermore, MedReleaf discharged its reverse onus under the AEPA, proving that it did not engage in an anti-union campaign, did not use external agents to intimidate employees, and did not unlawfully discipline or dismiss employees.

The requester sought a review of the Tribunal's decision dismissing her appeal under section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding the Dingle Creek Municipal Drain.

The requester alleged various procedural errors, bias, and jurisdictional issues, including expired limitation periods and invalid drainage petitions.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding no significant new evidence, no material errors of fact or law, and concluding that the requester was attempting to re-litigate the original appeal.

The Tribunal also upheld the previous costs awards against the requester, which were based on the vexatious conduct of her representative.

The appellant appealed a municipal engineer's report proposing a new drainage works under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the drain should be constructed on an alternative alignment or as a mutual agreement drain.

The appellant claimed the proposed works would negatively impact his property and proposed agricultural development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the engineer's evidence that the proposed alignment was hydraulically efficient, necessary to alleviate surface ponding, and that the appellant's alternative was significantly more expensive and technically inferior.

The Tribunal affirmed the municipality's right to proceed via petition rather than mutual agreement.