Even though the drainage company ruined his field, a farmer from Mari[posa Lakes in the Kawartha District has lost an appeal tribunal decision.
The tribunal ruled that he will not be paid compensation for his $5,960 cleanup costs and $1,500 for reseeding because he did not include those claims in his appeal.
As for the field damage, the tribunal ruled that the work followed the plans laid out by the engineering firm.
The tribunal decision was written by a lawyer who followed the rules, but it completely ignores common sense and fairness.
Trevor Little told the tribunal how the construction damaged his parents’ field of high-protein alfalfa.
When the construction on this farm started in December, 2023, he had concerns because the land was very wet and having done excavation himself, he knew that construction under these conditions was going to cause problems. Trrevor is a contractor.
The contractor started at the low end of the drain near Little Britain Road and crossed mostly non-agricultural lands with the open portion of the drain until he reached the Graeme’s field.
Trevor said he was surprised excavation began in the field in December because the clay soil was very wet and that he did not stop there.
Because the soil was so wet, the contractor could not strip the topsoil. All the soil got mixed because they could not separate the topsoil and subsoil. The site was very muddy and the machinery was getting stuck and causing ruts up to two feet deep.
The work spread out to up to 60 metres in some places, far beyond the 20 metres in the proposal.
He also testified that there was an “agreement” that the drainage works on his property would be carried out in August when the soil was dryer and that the topsoil and subsoil would be segregated.
The field was supposed to be restored to its original condition. In fact he trucked in tonnes of topsoil to remedy the damage.
He is claiming $5,000 for crop loss in 2024 and $3,120 for expected crop loss in 2025. The Report allowed them $1,098 as an allowance for crop loss.
The drainage supervisor, Richard Monaghan, testifed that he was not aware of the agreements Trevor cited, said the report did not state a starting date for the work on the Graeme field and that the drain was constructed in accordance with the report.
He said the conservation authority recommended the work be delayed from June because the soil was too wet. But apparently that reasoning was ignored in December.
And he said the contractor claimed he stayed within the 20-metre allowance. He did not provide any pictures or insped5ion reports to verify that claim.
