Edward Dries

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act regarding the repair and enclosure of a municipal drain on their property.

They argued for alternative repair methods and a reduction in their assessment, claiming upstream landowners should bear more of the costs.

The Tribunal found the proposed repair was the only viable option and that the assessments for benefit and special benefit were fair and in accordance with the Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment for a municipal drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the assessment was unfair, the allowance for damages was insufficient, and the municipality should bear the costs due to past neglect.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the engineer who prepared the report, explaining the modified Todgham method used for the assessment.

The Tribunal found the assessment was fair, consistently applied, and in accordance with accepted drainage engineering practices.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Esseltine Drain under sections 48 and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants, who own agricultural properties, argued that the proposed drainage works provided no benefit to their lands and that their assessments were disproportionately high compared to the urban and greenhouse developments contributing to the increased water flow and erosion.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent municipality's engineers, finding that the assessments were calculated using standard methodologies and were fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence to support modifying the Engineer's Report or the assessments, and dismissed the appeals.

The Township of Wainfleet applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to complete a new engineering report for the Consolidated South Wainfleet Drain under Section 76 of the Drainage Act.

The current assessment schedule, based on a 1969 report, did not accurately distribute maintenance costs among the branch drains.

The Tribunal found that the request met the requirements of the Act and granted permission to appoint an engineer to procure a new report to vary the assessments.

The appellants appealed the decision of the reconvened Court of Revision regarding the amended assessment schedule for the repair and improvement of the Southwest Branch of the Shepley Drain.

The appellants argued that the watershed limits and resulting assessments on their property were incorrect.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methods and the resulting amended assessments to be technically sound and equitable, dismissing the appeal and confirming the amended assessments.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction, design, and assessment of the Darmar-Tamlin Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal reviewed several specific issues regarding the drain's branches, manholes, and ditch inlets.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert evidence of the project engineer, the Tribunal approved several field changes, including extending a branch drain to the appellant's property line and removing an orifice plate, but largely confirmed the original design and revised assessment schedules.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to the appellant, finding no bad faith or unreasonable conduct by the municipality.

The City of Sarnia applied to the Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend a by-law governing the Clark Drain and Branches.

During construction of a pump station, asbestos was discovered in the existing building, leading to delays and a redesign that replaced the planned building with an outdoor station and weatherproof enclosures.

The Tribunal found that the modifications did not negatively impact the drainage works' capacity or cost apportionment, and granted the application to amend the by-law to reflect the as-constructed drawings.

Several landowners appealed an Engineer's Report proposing the enclosure of portions of the Switzer Drain and McLean Switzer Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drainage works were primarily designed to accommodate one landowner's request to close a drain, which would reduce the functionality and capacity of the municipal drain for upstream properties.

The Tribunal held that the Engineer failed to meet his duties under section 11 of the Drainage Act by proposing impractical and technically flawed works that did not adhere to the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Engineer's Report was set aside and the adopting by-law was ordered repealed.

The applicant municipality applied to the Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend a bylaw for a municipal drain.

During construction, existing utilities were found in different locations than shown on the original plans, necessitating design changes in the field.

The Tribunal found the modifications did not negatively impact the drain's functionality, level of service, or cost, and ordered the bylaw amended to incorporate the as-built drawings.

The appellant appealed his drainage assessment under the Drainage Act, arguing that his land's designation as a provincially significant wetland constituted a change in use warranting a reduction in his assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the statutory threshold for an appeal because his assessment amount had not changed.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held that a change in environmental designation did not constitute a change in the extent to which the lands used the drainage works.

Requests for abandonment of the drain and future damages were also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to follow statutory procedures.

The appellant appealed the assessment for the Miller Drain 2016 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the assessment reduced or altered.

The appellant had requested that the open ditch crossing his property be enclosed.

The appointed engineer prepared a report recommending the enclosure of the drain on the appellant's property and assessed the costs accordingly.

The appellant argued the costs should be dealt with as in the past but provided no details on an acceptable assessment.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the assessments were fair and reasonable, noting the report reflected the appellant's request and a prior Tribunal order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the drain was over-designed, an earth berm was improperly designed, a private drain was illegal, and their lands should not be assessed.

The Tribunal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the design standards appropriate and the private drain legal.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the engineer's report be modified to include a compacted clay key in the earth berm design and to plug an existing tile beneath the berm to properly support wetland development.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of the McClure Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the watershed area, the Benefit/Outlet cost splits, the treatment of two culverts, and the allowances provided.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's methodology for the cost splits and the watershed area, noting it was based on detailed field investigations.

However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the easterly culvert should be classified as an erosion control feature and the westerly culvert as the primary access to the appellant's lands.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be revised to incorporate these culverts into the drain and adjust the Special Benefit assessment for the westerly culvert accordingly.

The appeal was granted in part.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the Pilkington Drain, the respondent Municipality sought full indemnity costs of $23,594.21, arguing the appeal was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found the appellants' conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.

The Tribunal declined to make a direct costs award against the appellants, instead ordering that the Municipality's costs form part of the cost of the drainage works to be assessed proportionately among all property owners on the drain, in accordance with standard practice under the Drainage Act.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain on his property under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

He alleged the contractor failed to properly separate logs from brush, failed to level the site, and crushed existing drainage tiles.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that logs were improperly mixed with brush and the site required further grading, but dismissed the claim regarding crushed tiles.

The appeal was granted in part, and the municipality was ordered to complete the grading and sorting of debris.

The Appellants appealed a municipal drainage report (the Spriet Report) under s. 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have it set aside and replaced with their own private drainage works.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants' private works were undertaken without authorization and did not provide a benefit commensurate with the estimated costs to the watershed.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the municipality's drainage engineer over the Appellants' civil engineer, concluding that the Spriet Report provided a sufficient outlet and met design standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the Spriet Report was adopted.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Ouellette Drain East under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, the drain should flow west instead of east, the allowances provided were excessive, and their assessments should be reduced.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that the proposed easterly flow to the Marsh Creek Drain was a sufficient outlet, the allowances were properly calculated, and the assessments were appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the Report to reflect adjustments made at the Court of Revision.

Three property owners appealed their assessments under the Drainage Act for the repair, improvement, and extension of the Mary MacKenzie Drain.

The Tribunal granted the appeals of R.J. Broiler Farms Ltd. and Peter Bosma in part, finding that the watershed boundaries should be adjusted and certain 'Cut Off' benefits were improperly assessed.

The appeal of Jeannie Godlouski was denied, as she failed to provide evidence that her assessment was excessive or unfair.

The Tribunal ordered revisions to the Schedule of Assessment and the Schedule of Assessment for Future Maintenance.

The appellants, owners of large, primarily undeveloped properties, appealed their assessments for future maintenance of the Black Creek Drainage Works.

They argued that they should not be assessed for Benefit, or alternatively, that their Benefit assessment should be equivalent to a single developed lot.

The Tribunal held that Benefit assessments are appropriate for future maintenance schedules and that properties should be assessed based on their development potential rather than current use.

However, the Tribunal found that the engineer's method of equally dividing the Benefit assessment among the four large lots was inappropriate, and ordered that the assessment be re-distributed based on the length of drain abutting each property.

The appeal regarding a small, landlocked parcel was granted, reducing its assessment to zero.

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.