Andrew McBride

The appellants appealed the special benefit assessments levied against their properties for the replacement of access bridges and the restoration of their asphalt driveways as part of a municipal drain improvement project.

The Tribunal found that the need to replace the bridges was entirely due to increased flows from upstream residential development that lacked proper stormwater management.

Consequently, the Tribunal granted the appeals, removing the special benefit assessments from the appellants' properties and redistributing the costs to the upstream non-agricultural lands and the municipal road authorities.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Engineer's Report for Branch 'G' of the Dell Municipal Drain in the Municipality of Central Elgin.

The appellants challenged the assessments and the delineation of the watershed boundary.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's definition of the watershed area but found that a maintenance schedule was missing from the Report.

The Tribunal also found that the Lyle property received a cut-off benefit for its entire area and amended the assessment schedule accordingly.

The appeals of Somerville, Zovko, and 806584 Ontario Ltd. were granted in part, while the Lyles' appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment of his agricultural property for the construction and future maintenance of a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that his land did not hold surface water and received no benefit from the drain.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's professional opinion evidence that the property sloped toward the drain and contributed runoff, justifying the assessment for outlet and maintenance liability.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessment was found to be fair and reasonable.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the St. Agatha Municipal Drain 2015 under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the benefits of the proposed drainage works were commensurate with the estimated costs and that the project should proceed.

However, the Tribunal ordered modifications to the proposed works, substituting the Haid Branch Alternative, and adjusted the assessments for specific properties, including applying a reduction factor to pond areas.

The appeals were granted in part.

Appeals were filed regarding the assessments and engineering fees in the revised Engineer's Report for the Zavitz Municipal Drain and associated branch drains.

The Tribunal held a second interim hearing to review compliance with its previous orders.

The Tribunal issued further interim orders directing the engineer and municipal drainage superintendents to conduct site visits, review culvert sizes, adjust allowances, and reallocate engineering fees between the Town of Fort Erie and the City of Port Colborne.

The appellants appealed the assessments for the Stephenson Branch and the Cuthbert Branch of the Henderson Creek Drain 2015 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the benefit assessment percentages applied to the appellants' property were excessive and reduced them.

The Tribunal also found that it was unreasonable to charge the appellants for the costs of revising the Engineer's Report after other landowners objected to the proposed abandonment of the Cuthbert Branch, as the duty to ensure majority support for abandonment falls on the Engineer and the Township under section 84 of the Act.

The appeal was granted in part, with the assessments revised and the report revision costs removed from the project cost.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the Setterington Lane Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the assessments, the design of the drainage works, and the allowances provided.

The Tribunal found that the proposed work on the appellant's property, which included a large ditch and stormwater management facility, was excessive and unnecessary.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the Municipality with directions to delete the assumption of the existing drain upstream of a certain point, incorporate the construction of a berm as previously agreed upon by the neighbours, and increase the land allowance from $15,000 to $35,000 per acre.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for a new municipal drain, challenging the lack of alternative routes, the right of way allowances, and the benefit assessments to their property.

The Tribunal found that no feasible alternative routes existed due to topography and upheld the right of way allowances as fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed drain provided no agricultural or developmental benefit to the appellants' lands.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the section 22 benefit assessment and the upstream maintenance assessment to zero, while maintaining the section 23 outlet assessment.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Ashley Drain.

Two appellants sought to alter the drain's design due to environmental concerns and a desire for extended drainage, while another sought a reduction in their benefit assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the design alteration appeals, finding the proposed route practical and environmentally sound.

However, the Tribunal allowed one assessment appeal in part, reducing the benefit assessment to zero based on an agreed modification to the drain's profile on that property, and ordered the municipality to conduct a stormwater management study.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and requested a review of the Engineer's Account pertaining to the Zavitz Municipal Drain and associated branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer's Report contained oversights, including failing to account for the naturalized state of the Clee property and the correct location of the existing drain on the Philip property.

The Tribunal also found the engineering fees for the Zavitz Drain to be unreasonable and excessive, directing that they be reduced to the provincial average of 23% of the total project cost and reallocated between the municipalities based on the travel length of the drain.

The Engineer was ordered to revise the report accordingly.

A farmer appealed the assessment of costs for an environmental impact study required by the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (CA) for a proposed municipal drain.

The CA argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over it.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the CA because the CA acted under its own parallel regulatory regime, despite ignoring the Drainage Act processes.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Municipality to bear the full $49,944 cost of the study because it failed to properly manage the Drainage Act process and protect the farmer from unexpected costs.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Coleman Municipal Drain 2013.

They argued that the installation of HDPE pipes did not comply with industry standards, specifically regarding pipe dropping, excavation for bell ends, joint alignment, gasket placement, haunching, and traffic over the pipe, which they theorized would lead to tree root intrusion.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the construction fell below the 'first class workmanship' standard required by the Engineer's Report.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Golding-Baigent Drain Branch 'E' 2014 under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their property was already systematically tile drained and would not benefit from the proposed drainage works, making their assessment of 43.5% of the project cost excessive.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the proposed drain was to provide an outlet for upstream properties and that the appellants' property received only minimal benefit.

The Tribunal ordered that the assessments be revised, lowering the appellants' assessment and increasing the assessments for the upstream properties.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Reconsidered Drainage Report for the Fourth Concession Drain East and Cutoff Drains under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed $381,000 project, which expanded from simple requests for culvert replacements into a complete reconstruction and diversion, was unnecessary and too costly.

The Tribunal found that there were no significant drainage problems justifying the extensive works and that the estimated costs were not commensurate with the benefits to be derived.

The Tribunal granted the appeals, set aside the Report, and ordered the Town to proceed with the requested culvert replacements using an existing 1993 report.

Appeals were brought under the Drainage Act regarding the Engineer's Report for the proposed StageCoach Road East and West Municipal Drains.

The drains were petitioned for by developers to provide a legal outlet for stormwater from a new residential subdivision.

Downstream landowners, including an active farmer, appealed, arguing the drains were unnecessary and would burden their lands.

The developers also appealed their assessments.

The Tribunal found that the subdivision lands already had sufficient outlet to overdesigned stormwater ponds, and the downstream lands did not require drainage.

The Tribunal set aside the Engineer's Report, cancelling the drainage projects, and ordered the developers and the City to share the non-administrative costs incurred by the municipality.

The appellants, landowners within the Little Creek Municipal Drain watershed, appealed the Engineer's Reassessment Report for future maintenance of the drain.

They argued that the Engineer's ratio of 'benefit' to 'outlet' assessment unfairly burdened their lands.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer relied too heavily on previous reports and that, for maintenance projects, benefit assessments should not apply because maintenance simply preserves the existing outlet for all lands in the drainage area without providing new benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer to revise the assessment schedule to eliminate benefit assessments and base it solely on outlet assessments.

The Tribunal also ordered corrections for overlooked woodlots and ownership errors, and directed the municipality to proceed with requested maintenance work.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Wakem-Weir Drain 2013, arguing their property was already systematically drained and derived no benefit from the proposed new drain.

The Tribunal found that while the property derived some benefit from the new catch basins and drain configuration, the assessment was excessive because the new drain was unusually deep and did not provide 'Cut-off Benefit' or improve crop production.

The Tribunal ordered significant reductions to the appellants' benefit and outlet assessments, redistributing the reduced amounts pro rata to upstream lands and roads, including a special assessment to Enbridge.