Betty Lambert

Several assessed landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works were too extensive and that their assessments were disproportionate to the benefits received.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's 50% benefit and 50% outlet assessment division, finding it fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal declined to eliminate the proposed pumping station but ordered minor modifications to the report, including the addition of a high-water alarm system and the removal of a specific culvert.

The appeals were largely dismissed.

The Township of Zone applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the North Branch Butler Drain.

The Township of Euphemia did not object.

The Tribunal granted the application and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Several ratepayers appealed the engineer's report on the Bearss Drain and Wm.

Michael Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the assessment of costs, the proposed berms, and the allowances.

The Tribunal found that the proposed flood control project was appropriate to address water flowing up the drains from Lake Erie.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the modification of the works and the allowances, but ordered adjustments to the assessments to ensure that abutting lots capable of supporting only one residence were assessed as single buildable parcels.

The appellant appealed the assessment for improvements to a municipal drain adjacent to his property.

The appellant argued that the municipality had previously promised to repair the eroding ditch bank as maintenance at a minimal cost, but later required a new engineer's report for improvements, resulting in a significantly higher assessment.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed work constituted an improvement requiring a new report, the municipality had misled the appellant regarding the cost and timing of repairs.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the appellant's benefit assessment and increased the assessment against the municipality's roads.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the relocation of a municipal drain on a golf course property, expressing concerns about potential water quality deterioration from fertilizer and pesticide runoff.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's concerns and noting that the proposed grass cover would likely improve water quality by retaining sediments and nutrients.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay up to $3,000 in costs for the engineer's preparation and attendance, as the appellant brought no concrete evidence and demonstrated a lack of preparation.

The appellant appealed under Section 5(2) of the Drainage Act from the City's decision not to accept a new petition for drainage works.

The Tribunal found that an engineering report from a previous petition was still 'in progress' and could be appealed under Section 45(2).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that allowing a new petition for the same drainage problem without a change in conditions was an inappropriate use of the Act's procedures, while encouraging the parties to pursue a self-help solution.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the Laidlaw Drain.

The appellant argued that the assessment was unjustified and that the drain provided no benefit to its property.

The respondent's engineer testified that the assessment was calculated using the Todgham method and that the appellant did receive a benefit.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's methodology and found the assessment to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding a requisition drain, arguing that the recommended allowance was inadequate and that a tile drain should be constructed to control seepage from the upstream owner's property.

The Tribunal agreed that a tile drain was the most appropriate solution but found that the cost exceeded the statutory limit for a requisition drain under section 3 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal granted the appeal and provided a 90-day period for the property owners to file a petition for a drainage works under section 4 of the Act.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report regarding the Clark-Pratt Drain 1994, objecting to the non-agricultural designation of her lands and the amount of her assessment.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal upheld the non-agricultural designation, finding the lands were not used for agricultural purposes regardless of zoning or size.

However, the Tribunal found the benefit assessment for the Main Drain was too high given the rugged nature of the lands and reduced it by $1,000, redistributing the cost to the initiating petitioner and the Ministry of Transportation.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the Port Bruce Drain, arguing that the flooding problem was primarily caused by the Ministry of Transportation's reconstruction of Highway No. 73, which acted as a dam.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the equivalent area factor used for the highway should be increased.

The Tribunal ordered that all outlet assessments levied against the lands in the watershed be reduced by 20%, with the reduction added to the outlet assessment of the Ministry of Transportation.

The benefit assessments were found to be equitable and were not disturbed.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain extension necessitated by the reconstruction of Highway 401.

The appellants argued that the proposed detention and infiltration ponds should not be located on their lands and that their benefit assessments were excessive.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal ordered that the infiltration pond be relocated to the highway right-of-way and reduced the benefit assessments of the affected landowners by 50%, shifting those costs to the Ministry of Transportation, which was the primary beneficiary of the drainage works.