Andrew Wright

OAFRAATUnanimous0 cases1995–1997

John Bacher

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalNov 21, 1996

Tribunal confirmed drainage report but ordered municipality to consider a new report for a larger tile drain.

Several ratepayers appealed the assessments and the engineer's report for the Abraham Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellants preferred the installation of a new, larger tile drain rather than the proposed cost-sensitive solution involving a detention berm that would flood a woodlot.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals as no evidence was presented against them.

The Tribunal confirmed the existing report but ordered the Township not to proceed until it received and considered a new report detailing the construction of a large tile drain, giving the ratepayers an opportunity to review the preferred but more expensive option.

Abraham Municipal Drain Improvement (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 21

Vernon Spencer

Russell Piper

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 21, 1996

Drainage construction appeal resolved by ordering completion of warranty work and assessing costs against obstructive appellants.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act concerning the quality of construction of the Trudell Drain No. 2.

They raised several complaints including erosion, potential pipe damage, and incomplete outlet structures.

The Tribunal found that the municipality and contractor were ready to complete the necessary warranty work but were prevented from doing so by the appellants, who refused access.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to complete the repairs, directed the appellants to provide access, and assessed $2,000 in costs against the appellants for unnecessarily prolonging the dispute.

Trudell Drain #2 (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 19

Vernon Spencer

Russell Piper

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 18, 1996

Drainage assessment appeal denied; engineer's methodology for allocating costs between municipality and agricultural lands found fair.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment proposed in an engineer's report for the Howick Drain 11 Extension, arguing that the municipality caused the drainage problem by filling in a low area for an arena parking lot and that the agricultural lands did not benefit from the proposed drain.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the proposed project was a reasonable technical solution and that the engineer's methodology for calculating the assessments was fair.

The appeal was denied and the assessments were upheld.

Howick Number 11 Drain Extension (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 18

Vernon Spencer

Russell Piper

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 2, 1996

Drainage assessment upheld as fair and reasonable; engineer's methodology for calculating outlet liability accepted.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming their assessment for the Domm Municipal Drain, Branch D. They argued their assessment was too high compared to a neighbouring property, asserting that the neighbour's tile drainage contributed to the water flow.

The respondent municipality's engineer testified about the methodology used to calculate benefit and outlet liability, which factored in acreage, land class, distance, and profile.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methodology consistent and the resulting assessment fair and reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

Domm Municipal Drain, Branch D (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 17

Warren Jenner

OAFRAATUnanimous0 cases1994–1999

Herb Todgham

OAFRAAT0 cases1996–2000

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalJul 8, 1996

Tribunal reduced outlet assessment for drainage works and directed Council to reconsider project with revised assessments.

Several ratepayers appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the North Woolsey Drain, arguing that the proposed improvements (enclosing an open ditch with a tile drain) were too costly and that a clean-out would be preferable.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the main purpose of the proposed work was to eliminate the existing open ditch, which primarily benefited the abutting properties.

The Tribunal ordered the outlet assessment to be reduced by half, with the reduction charged to the lands assessed a special benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Township Council to circulate the revised assessment schedule, meet with the parties, and then decide whether to proceed with the project or simply clean out the drain.

North Woolsey Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 14

agent for appellant Jennifer Noss

Wanda NicowskiAgent
1 appearance

appellant

Belfa ThomasSelf-represented
2 appearances
Bill WalkerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Chris HoskinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donald Dewayne HutchisonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Dorn PattonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Edward EinbodenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Elwood FitchSelf-represented
1 appearance
Erna KuehnSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ernie HawtonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Frank OtelloSelf-represented
1 appearance
Freda DippelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Glen GearingSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gunther SchachtSelf-represented
1 appearance
Harry RowleySelf-represented
1 appearance
Helen GrattoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Helmut RempelSelf-represented
1 appearance
James DeanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jennifer NossSelf-represented
1 appearance
John GrimoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Karl KuaneSelf-represented
1 appearance

appellant in person

John GarveySelf-represented
1 appearance
John W. DowsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Scott ConsittSelf-represented
1 appearance
Thomas ConsittSelf-represented
1 appearance

appellant, in person

Fred LangSelf-represented
1 appearance

appellants

Arlyn MontgomerySelf-represented
1 appearance
C. M. H. ChurchillSelf-represented
1 appearance
Doug JenereauxSelf-represented
1 appearance
Glenn MontgomerySelf-represented
1 appearance
Hazel AtkinsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Irene WawrowSelf-represented
1 appearance
John D. HillSelf-represented
1 appearance
Les WawrowSelf-represented
1 appearance

appellants in person

Mr. & Mrs. Dan O’NeilSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed landowner

Bill DowsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Daryll BettsSelf-represented
1 appearance
Glen HayterSelf-represented
1 appearance
Liam McCreerySelf-represented
1 appearance
Mary SimpsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mrs. Betty SimpsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Paul FoellSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ron Sharpe Sr.Self-represented
1 appearance
William MostowySelf-represented
1 appearance
Wynne RossSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed landowners

Don LounsburySelf-represented
1 appearance
Ernst Von AllwoerdenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Fred MeierSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jim HunterSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ken MarksSelf-represented
1 appearance
Randy Van Den HeedeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Roger MarsdenSelf-represented
1 appearance

assessed landowner, witness

Jack BerkhoutAgent
1 appearance

assessed ratepayer

Dean WebbSelf-represented
1 appearance
Noreen ParkSelf-represented
1 appearance
Richard AbrahamSelf-represented
1 appearance

Councillor for the Township of East Wawanosh

Jim CampbellAgent
1 appearance

Counsel for the respondent the Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Ronald RobertsonCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to appellants Leo Harju and John Grimo

Peter LingardCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to Leo Harju, appellant and John Grimo, appellant Helen Gratto, appellant

Peter LingardCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to Nexfor Inc., appellant

John CrossinghamCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the appellant

Callum SheddenCounsel
1 appearance
Donald GoodCounsel
1 appearance
Paul CoureyCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the appellant Mr. Lewis

Charmian HillsCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the respondent

Peter WechselmannCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the respondent, the Director of Regulatory Compliance

Geoff SpurrCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the respondent the Township of Anderdon

Jim RenickCounsel
1 appearance
Kirk WalstedtCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the respondent the Township of Wainfleet

George BanksCounsel
1 appearance

counsel to the Tribunal

Tom GrahamCounsel
1 appearance

drainage superintendent for the Township of Delhi

Chris ThompsonAgent
1 appearance

engineer for the report

Bryon WiebeAgent
1 appearance
Kent SchachowskojAgent
1 appearance

engineer who prepared the report

Ken SmartAgent
1 appearance

for AGRICORP

Harry FraserAgent
1 appearance
Jim ZavitzAgent
1 appearance
Peter FisherAgent
1 appearance

for Christ Church Huntingford

Robert WaltonAgent
1 appearance

for herself

Catherine CocchioSelf-represented
1 appearance
Julie ArcherSelf-represented
1 appearance
Laurie BranderSelf-represented
1 appearance

for himself

Bill VandenhovenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Edward SullivanSelf-represented
1 appearance
John RavenhorstSelf-represented
1 appearance
Robert JacksonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Thomas BillingtonSelf-represented
1 appearance

for M. and H. Ostromecki

Mr. UngaroCounsel
1 appearance

for Mr. Peter Van Kruistum, appellant

Bradley W. StoneCounsel
1 appearance

for Mr. Russell Wilson, appellant

Paul AmyCounsel
1 appearance

for Oildale Farms Ltd.

Scott CampbellAgent
1 appearance

for the appellant

Ed DriesAgent
1 appearance
Tony DecooAgent
1 appearance

for the appellant, Hallstead Farms Ltd.

Gerald NewellAgent
1 appearance

for the appellant McGuigan’s Orchard Ltd.

John McGuiganAgent
1 appearance

for the appellant Ruth McFeeters

Dale McFeetersAgent
1 appearance

for the appellants

Frank MurphyCounsel
1 appearance
Herbert SonnenbergSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joanne VergeerSelf-represented
1 appearance
John VergeerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michael G. CloutierSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the appellant, S. Barbarino

W. L. ScrivenAgent
1 appearance

for the appellants Ester and Louis Arvai

Karl ArvaiCounsel
1 appearance

for the appellants, Ralph & Shirley Clayton

Ralph ClaytonSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Estate of Henry Houser Vanderburgh, appellant

Malcolm VanderburghAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent

Mike DeVosAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, Municipality of Southwest Middlesex

Dennis McCreadyAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Perth East

Paul ElstonAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent the Municipality of West Elgin

Dennis McCreadyAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Enniskillen

Ray DobbinAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent, the Township of Malahide

John SprietAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent the Township of Mariposa

Brian GreckAgent
1 appearance

for the respondent the Township of North Dorchester

Paul ElstonAgent
1 appearance

for the Township of Burford Roads Department, appellant

Robert ParsonsCounsel
1 appearance

late appellant

Jennifer NossSelf-represented
1 appearance

on behalf of Donna Whitlock, appellant

Leonard WhitlockSelf-represented
1 appearance

on behalf of the appellant, H. A. Staff Limited

Howard StaffAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the appellant M. and N. Sauro

Don PletchAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the appellants Brian and Elizabeth Keenan and 823850 Ltd.

Paul CoureyCounsel
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, AgriCorp

Peter IlnyckyjAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, AGRICORP

Husseinali ShivjiAgent
1 appearance
Peter IlnyckyjAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondents, the Township of Morris

Andrew McBrideAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the City of Port Colborne

Bryon WiebeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Respondent, the City of Port Colborne

Bryan WiebeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, The City of Stoney Creek

Bryon WiebeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, The Corporation of the Township of Wallace

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Enio P. SulloAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the Municipality of West Elgin

Denis McCreadyAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board

Geoff SpurrAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Anderdon

Gerard RoodAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Delhi

John KuntzeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Melancthon

Don McNaltyAgent
1 appearance
Tom PridhamAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Normanby

Wm. MannerowAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of North Dorchester

John SprietAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Stanley

John SprietAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Turnberry

J. Andrew McBrideAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent the Township of Wainfleet

Bryan WiebeAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, the Township of West Nissouri

Mike DeVosAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the respondent, The Township of West Wawanosh

T. M. PridhamAgent
1 appearance

on behalf of the Township of Southwold

M.P. De VosAgent
1 appearance
Ralph BeharrellAgent
1 appearance

party to the hearing

Eunice BosomworthSelf-represented
1 appearance
John BosomworthSelf-represented
1 appearance

P. Eng.

Bryon WeibeAgent
1 appearance
Kent SchachowskojAgent
1 appearance

Reeve of the Township of Morris

Bert ElliottAgent
1 appearance

representing 91869 Ontario Incorporated, appellant Rick Fischuk, appellant

Bob RobinsonAgent
1 appearance

representing 918969 Ontario Incorporated, appellant

Bob RobinsonAgent
1 appearance

representing Cytec Canada Inc., appellant

George SlaneyAgent
1 appearance

representing Cytec Canada Inc., appellant Helmut Rempel, appellant

George SlaneyAgent
1 appearance

representing Daryll and Lyle Betts (Roll No. 40-090) and Darta Farms Ltd (Roll No. 40-075), Walter and Katherine Betts (Roll Nos. 40-074 and 40-092), assessed upstream landowners

Andy McBrideAgent
1 appearance

representing Efelar Holdings Ltd., assessed landowner

Frank RothAgent
1 appearance

representing Henry Hauser estate, appellant John Grimo, appellant

Malcolm VanderburghAgent
1 appearance

representing James Dean, appellant

Mark NowakAgent
1 appearance

representing Provincial Construction (Niagara Falls) Ltd.

Sam KitsonAgent
1 appearance

representing Walynn Enterprises Inc., appellant

Tracy BakerAgent
1 appearance

the engineer who prepared the report

Tom PridhamAgent
1 appearance

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

0.6

cases/mo

OAFRAAT46(100%)

Decision types

appeal

motion

/Adjudicator

Andrew Wright — Vice-Chair

Andrew Wright

Vice-Chair·Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal·Since 1996

cases · 7 yrs · OAFRAAT

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-Chair· 29Vice Chair· 8Vice-Chair· 4Vice Chair· 2Member· 1Chair· 1Vice-Chair· 1

Paul Courey

In Private Practice68 cases1996–2026

Kirk Walstedt

Licence Surrendered - Retired1 case1996–1996

Jim Renick

In Private Practice6 cases1996–2019

Herb Todgham

OAFRAATUnanimous0 cases1996–2000

Doug Flook

OAFRAATUnanimous0 cases1996–2013

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalNov 26, 1996

Appeal dismissed as municipality had already appointed an engineer to report on drain improvements.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal under section 5(2) of the Drainage Act from the municipality's decision not to appoint an engineer to prepare a report to improve a drain.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality appointed an engineer.

The appellant requested the Tribunal set aside the appointment and appoint its own engineer due to the municipality's historical delays.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dolphis-Meloche Drain (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 22

Charmian Hills

1 case1996–1996

Vernon Spencer

OAFRAATUnanimous0 cases1995–1997

John Bacher

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalNov 21, 1996

Tribunal confirmed drainage report but ordered municipality to consider a new report for a larger tile drain.

Several ratepayers appealed the assessments and the engineer's report for the Abraham Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellants preferred the installation of a new, larger tile drain rather than the proposed cost-sensitive solution involving a detention berm that would flood a woodlot.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals as no evidence was presented against them.

Abraham Municipal Drain Improvement (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 21

Vernon Spencer

Russell Piper

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 21, 1996

Drainage construction appeal resolved by ordering completion of warranty work and assessing costs against obstructive appellants.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act concerning the quality of construction of the Trudell Drain No. 2.

They raised several complaints including erosion, potential pipe damage, and incomplete outlet structures.

The Tribunal found that the municipality and contractor were ready to complete the necessary warranty work but were prevented from doing so by the appellants, who refused access.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to complete the repairs, directed the appellants to provide access, and assessed $2,000 in costs against the appellants for unnecessarily prolonging the dispute.

Trudell Drain #2 (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 19

Vernon Spencer

Russell Piper

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 18, 1996

Drainage assessment appeal denied; engineer's methodology for allocating costs between municipality and agricultural lands found fair.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the proposed project was a reasonable technical solution and that the engineer's methodology for calculating the assessments was fair.

The appeal was denied and the assessments were upheld.

Howick Number 11 Drain Extension (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 18

Vernon Spencer

Russell Piper

Andrew Wright

OAFRAATAgriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal TribunalOct 2, 1996

Drainage assessment upheld as fair and reasonable; engineer's methodology for calculating outlet liability accepted.

The respondent municipality's engineer testified about the methodology used to calculate benefit and outlet liability, which factored in acreage, land class, distance, and profile.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methodology consistent and the resulting assessment fair and reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

Domm Municipal Drain, Branch D (Re), 1996 ONAFRAAT 17

Warren Jenner

OAFRAATUnanimous0 cases1994–1999

Herb Todgham

OAFRAAT0 cases1996–2000

Andrew Wright