6 total
Drainage Act appeals granted; insufficient outlet compensation increased and special benefit assessment against lower lands removed.
The appellants appealed the compensation and special benefit assessments under the Drainage Act regarding a proposed municipal drain.
The Tribunal found that the compensation for insufficient outlet was inadequate because the engineer calculated the corridor length based on an arbitrary termination point rather than the actual distance to a sufficient outlet.
The Tribunal increased the compensation from $5,690 to $9,653.
The Tribunal also found that the $5,510 special benefit assessment against the appellants for additional engineering investigations was unjust, as the onus is on the upper lands to justify an insufficient outlet.
Both appeals were granted.
Costs application for improperly brought motion to add parties dismissed.
The appellant sought $1,000 in costs against a non-party and a newly added party for an improperly brought motion to be added as a party to a drainage appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs, finding no authority to award costs against a non-party and concluding that the added party's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.
The Tribunal noted that costs should only be ordered in the most egregious circumstances, which were not present here.
Motion for document production dismissed as appellant failed to prove arguable relevance of requested planning documents.
The appellant brought a motion for an order directing the respondent municipality and third parties to produce various planning and environmental documents related to lands within the watershed of a proposed drain.
The appellant argued the documents were necessary to evaluate the drain's impact on its property.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to provide evidentiary foundation, such as expert affidavit evidence, to prove the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issues of flow and contamination on the appeal.
Motion to amend consent order dismissed as the Board lacks jurisdiction to vary it without mutual agreement.
The appellant filed a motion to amend a consent order regarding the proceeds of the sale of cattle removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.
The appellant requested that the proceeds be held by a third party instead of the respondent.
The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to amend a consent order without consent.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that it is a creature of statute and its powers under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act do not include the ability to vary a consent order without the agreement of both parties.
Tribunal issues procedural order for hearing on zoning by-law amendment for a veal barn.
The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit the construction of a new veal barn and an increase in permitted livestock.
The Tribunal issued a procedural order establishing the issues list, witness requirements, and schedule for the upcoming video hearing.
Meat plant operator qualifies for food service exemption; Director's disposal order revoked.
The appellant operated a meat processing business at a permanent location and sold products from a mobile trailer at farmers' markets and events.
The Ministry detained his meat products, alleging he operated an unlicensed meat plant.
The appellant appealed the Director's disposal order, claiming the 'food service exemption' under the Meat Regulation.
The Tribunal found that over 50% of the appellant's total business sales were meals or meal portions for immediate consumption, qualifying the business for the exemption.
The appeal was allowed and the Director's disposal order was revoked.
