Brenda Lammens

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 moving party appealed a decision of the responding party regarding calculated base adjustments for chicken processors and brought a motion for a stay of those adjustments pending the appeal.

The Tribunal held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay that suspends the current policy, but rather maintains the status quo of the existing adjustment policy.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the requested stay, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision to refer an Engineer's Report back to the engineer under the Drainage Act.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority brought a motion for party status.

The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 45(2) because the Act does not provide an appeal right when a report is referred back to the engineer.

Finding that the appeal essentially challenged the validity of the council's resolution, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Drainage Referee pursuant to s. 106(1)(b), the Tribunal transferred the matter to the Referee under s. 119.

Consequently, the motion for party status was deemed academic.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report on the Newbiggen Drive Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that a berm included in the final report was unnecessary and lacked adequate specifications.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the engineer's evidence regarding the berm's necessity and location was unconvincing.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the berm from the report and directed the engineer to correct several other errors and deficiencies in the report, including pipe lengths, specifications, and cost estimates, at the engineer's own expense.