Ed Dries

Several residential property owners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Sinclair Drain/Virostek Drain 2014 under the Drainage Act, challenging the necessity of the works, the proposed design, and the assessments levied against them.

The appellants argued they should not have to pay for drainage improvements that primarily benefit adjacent agricultural lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed covered drain was the most cost-effective and technically sound solution.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the residential development had obstructed natural surface water flows, and upheld the assessments as fairly distributed using the modified Todgham Method.

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 Norfolk County Roads Department appealed the Engineer's report for the Decou Road Drain, arguing that the assessments for benefit and outlet liability for Branch B were disproportionately levied against the municipality.

The Engineer had assessed 100% of the remaining capital costs and future maintenance costs for Branch B against Norfolk County, while assessing other affected properties at zero dollars.

The Tribunal found that the construction of Branch B offered significant benefit to other directly affected properties and that the assessment of capital and maintenance costs solely against the municipality was inequitable.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the Engineer to revise the Schedule of Assessment for Branch B to include appropriate assessments for benefit and outlet liability against all affected lands.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the Fox-Jakait Drain.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer failed to properly allocate costs associated with road crossings to the road authority as mandatorily required by section 26 of the Drainage Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessment against the appellants unfairly applied a runoff coefficient of 0.50, failing to account for the 0.25 coefficient mandated by their existing development agreement and stormwater management plan.

The Tribunal ordered the Schedule of Assessment to be amended accordingly.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the Ruscom River Outlet No. 3 Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the damage allowances and benefit assessments levied against their property.

The Tribunal upheld the allowances provided for the loss of a tree and a boathouse, finding no compelling evidence to adjust them.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part regarding the benefit assessment, reducing it from $9,434 to $7,144 by adjusting the cost allocation for a new steel sheet pile wall to match the allocation used for filling the boat well.

The Ministry of Natural Resources appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act and was completely unsuccessful.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought costs of the appeal.

The Tribunal determined that the Drainage Act, rather than the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, governed its costs jurisdiction, granting it broad discretion.

The Tribunal awarded the Municipality its costs on a partial indemnity basis, including reasonable disbursements for the Engineer's involvement, totaling $27,212.81.

The Ministry of Natural Resources appealed an Engineer's report under section 40 of the Drainage Act, which apportioned one-third of the costs of an abandoned drainage project to the Ministry.

The project, intended to replace a beaver dam with a permanent spillway to control water levels in Deer Lake, was deemed impractical by the Engineer due to the Ministry's confusing and inconsistent requirements for location approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer had broad jurisdiction under section 40 to determine who should pay the fees and charges, and that the apportionment to the Ministry was reasonable given its misleading communications that resulted in wasted time and expense.

The appeal was dismissed.