Andrew McBride

Several landowners appealed the 2022 Engineer's Report for the Cranberry Creek Municipal Drain, arguing that the land use factors (LUFs) were incorrect, the Pump and Dyke System was improperly included, and their properties were assessed too high.

The Tribunal found that the LUFs should have followed the Tribunal's 2020 Decision, which assigned lower factors to forested lands and provincially significant wetlands.

The Tribunal also found that the Pump and Dyke System had been abandoned and its inclusion constituted reconstruction, which falls outside the scope of a section 76 report.

Due to these and other significant errors in land use classification, the Tribunal set aside the 2022 Report.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for their properties under the Drainage Act regarding the Biederman Municipal Drain improvement project.

They argued that the drainage works should be funded by existing property taxes rather than specific assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that the allowances were inadequate or that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the assessments were fair and reasonable, and adopted the Engineer's Report in full.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.

The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.

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 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.

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 appellant appealed his assessment for Special Benefit under the Drainage Act regarding the Fleming Drain Extension.

The engineer's report assessed the appellant's property $10,095 for special benefit related to the partial filling of a ravine to control erosion.

The appellant argued he should be assessed nothing and that the neighbouring property should bear the cost.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's property did receive a special benefit from the stabilization of the ravine bank, but that the assessment was disproportionate.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant's special benefit assessment be reduced by 50%, with the balance assessed as Outlet and Injuring Liability to upstream lands and roads.

On written motions within a municipal drain appeal under the Drainage Act, the appellants sought summary dismissal or redirection of the drain proceedings, alleged errors in the engineer’s report, raised an alleged council conflict of interest, requested more time for expert evidence, and sought disclosure of a potential witness’s identity.

The Tribunal held that the merits of the drain appeal and alleged errors in the engineer’s report required an evidentiary hearing and could not be resolved summarily.

It further held that any municipal conflict issue fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and belonged in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for the appellants’ expert report to August 13, 2021, reserved the disclosure request, and cancelled the scheduled pre-hearing conference pending rescheduling.

The Holland Marsh Drainage System Joint Municipal Service Board applied under section 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the 1990 Schedule of Assessment.

The Board cited changes in conditions due to the development and hardening of agricultural land.

No assessed persons objected to the application.

The Tribunal granted the requested permission.

Two landowners appealed their assessments for the proposed South Tributary Municipal Drain.

The first appellant argued his property could not be developed and should not be assessed, but provided no evidence to support changing the Engineer's Report; his appeal was dismissed.

The second appellant argued his properties drained south and did not use the proposed drain's outlet.

The Tribunal accepted the second appellant's photographic and topographic evidence, ordering his properties removed from the drainage area and their assessments reallocated to the road authority.

The appellants sought to appeal a drainage assessment to the Tribunal under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

However, they had not filed an appeal with the court of revision within the required timelines.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because section 54 requires the appellant to have been a party to an appeal before the court of revision.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a drainage assessment under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

During the hearing, the municipality's drainage engineer testified and mentioned a recent municipal council decision offering property owners a 20-year payment option for assessments.

The appellants, who were previously unaware of this option, requested a recess and subsequently withdrew their appeal.

The Tribunal confirmed the withdrawal and concluded the hearing.

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 the engineer's report and assessments for the proposed Krause-Piquette Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant raised concerns regarding the alignment of certain branch drains, the environmental impact of the main drain excavation, the spreading of spoil, land allowances, and the assessment of a rock outcropping.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals, finding that the appellant provided no contrary engineering evidence for realignment and that environmental and drainage concerns were adequately addressed in the report.

However, the Tribunal granted the section 54 appeal in part, reducing the appellant's assessment for the Piquette Branch because it primarily served as an outlet for another property.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Rose Beach Line Drain Outlet Structure under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The report recommended constructing a steel sheet piling flume to address severe erosion at the drain's outlet on Lake Erie.

The appellants argued the project was too costly, unnecessary, and poorly designed for a coastal environment.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals, finding the appellants failed to provide expert engineering evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal ordered the municipality to obtain a coastal engineer's review of the design and to secure all necessary agency approvals before proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered that the existing right of way be used for access and approved minor revisions to the assessment schedules.

The municipality sought costs against the appellant following the dismissal of his appeal regarding a municipal drain.

The municipality argued the appellant's conduct was frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate that the appellant acted in a clearly unreasonable fashion, noting that part of his appeal had actually been granted.

The request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report for a municipal drain under the Drainage Act, raising concerns about ditchbank erosion, pesticide buffer zones, and historical notes on the drainage drawings.

The Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the municipality to seed the ditchbanks to prevent erosion.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to relocate the drain, finding it was not a sensitive freshwater habitat requiring pesticide buffer zones, and retained the historical notes on the drawings with minor wording modifications.

The appellants appealed the benefit assessment levied against their property for a municipal drainage project.

The Tribunal reviewed the revised Engineer's Report and found that the proposed drainage works, including a closed pipe and open drain, would significantly improve the property's drainage and increase its value.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefit assessment of $359 was fair and reasonable, confirmed the Engineer's Report, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the revised drainage assessments for their agricultural property under the Drainage Act following two property severances.

The Town had directed the engineer to revise the assessment schedule to reflect the severances, which resulted in a disproportionate assessment per acre for the appellants compared to a similar neighbouring property.

The Tribunal found the engineer's revised assessment was not fair or transparent, as the engineer could not explain the anomalous results or the precise application of his proximity and envelope concepts.

The appeal was granted, and the Tribunal re-balanced the assessments among the severed properties based on the original schedule.