Enio Sullo

Several landowners appealed the decisions of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Baer Municipal Drain.

At the hearing, the Tribunal discovered that the Engineer's Report adopted by the municipal council and circulated to landowners was neither signed nor sealed by the engineer.

The Tribunal found that the unsigned and unsealed report was not a valid report under the Drainage Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Engineer's Report, rendering the appeals moot, and directed that the proper statutory process be followed for adopting a new report.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the assessments were too high and that downstream drainage issues should be addressed first.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed work, which included relocating a portion of the drain to follow the natural gradient, was necessary and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found the assessments fair and equitable and dismissed the appeals, while granting the engineer's request to amend the working corridor and corresponding allowances.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the replacement of a closed tile drain on agricultural land located in a flood plain.

The appellants argued the proposed 24-inch tile was unnecessarily large, that blowouts were caused by floodwaters rather than inadequate capacity, and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's design standard was reasonable and in accordance with the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Tribunal upheld the construction assessments but ordered revisions to the maintenance assessments and deleted a right-of-way allowance that had been previously paid.

The Tribunal also ordered the municipality to bear the Engineer's hearing costs due to inadequate communication during the process.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the construction of a new municipal tile drain on their property.

They sought to have the drain diverted to a different watershed, requested changes to the drain's design, argued for increased allowances for land and crop damages, and sought a reduction in their drainage assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence that the design was appropriate for the historical watershed, the allowances were fair and equitable, and the assessment methodology conformed with the Drainage Act.

The Township of Norwich applied to the Tribunal under Section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to modify the Engineer's Report on the Ross Drain 2004.

The modifications were required due to additional tile replacement work and associated costs not included in the original report.

The Tribunal ordered the Municipality to adopt the Engineer's Addendum, directed a Court of Revision for assessment appeals, and held that accrued interest charges and engineering fees for the hearing should be borne by the Municipality and the Engineer, not the assessed landowners, due to delays and unauthorized work.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Miller Drainage Works 1969.

The appellant sought to have the open channel of the drain on his property enclosed, as originally proposed in the Engineer's preliminary report.

The Tribunal found that the municipal council exceeded its jurisdiction by exerting undue influence on the Engineer to change the report's recommendations from a drain enclosure to an access culvert, and that the Engineer failed to exercise independent judgment.

The Tribunal set aside the Report and ordered the municipality to appoint a new Engineer to prepare a final report for the enclosure of the drain.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act, seeking to redirect proposed drainage away from his property to a North Drain, remove his property from the drainage area, and eliminate his assessments.

The Tribunal heard competing expert engineering evidence regarding natural surface water flow and project costs.

The Tribunal accepted the municipal engineer's conclusion that natural overland flow is predominantly from northeast to southwest and that the proposed Drain A option was the most practical solution.

The Tribunal found the appellant's assessments for benefit and outlet to be fair and equitable.

The appeals were denied.

The appellant appealed his drainage assessment under the Drainage Act, arguing that his reforestation efforts significantly reduced surface water runoff from his property, rendering the drain of no benefit to him.

The Tribunal accepted that reforestation reduces runoff but noted the engineer had already applied a 50% reduction to the appellant's assessment to account for this.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessments were upheld.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the installation and assessment of a new residential access culvert over a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the municipality had improperly installed a previous culvert in 1996 and that the municipality should bear the entire cost of the new culvert.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's decision in 1995 to use a 'letter of sizing' instead of a proper Engineer's Report contributed to the dispute.

The Tribunal ordered the relocation of a hydro pole guy wire to be included in the works, dismissed requests to extend the driveway and amend lot references, and reapportioned the $13,400 estimated cost of the works, assessing $7,900 to the appellants and $5,500 to the municipality.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the VanBuuren Municipal Drain Branch 'A'.

The appellants argued for an alternative drain design and that the municipality should bear a larger portion of the costs due to its past inaction on drainage issues during lot severances.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the alternative design was not feasible and that the assessments were calculated in compliance with the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the Balsam Street Drain, arguing that the allowances for right-of-way and damages were insufficient and did not reflect actual real estate values.

The appellants also contested their assessments and raised concerns about loss of privacy due to municipal access for maintenance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that nominal allowances were appropriate because the drainage swale existed when the properties were purchased and the properties would be fully restored after construction.

The Tribunal also upheld the Engineer's methodology for distributing project costs and noted that municipal access for maintenance is an inherent requirement of the Drainage Act.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act regarding the construction of a new residential access culvert over a municipal drain.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal identified the issues under appeal, which included requests to modify the Engineer's Report and to assess the entire cost of the drainage works to the municipality due to an alleged past error in installing an existing culvert.

The Tribunal determined it had jurisdiction over the appeals under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act and ordered the matter to proceed to a full hearing.

The Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury initiated a major drainage works project to improve the Holland Marsh Drainage System canals and dykes.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that the allowances for land used (s. 29) and damages (s. 30) were inadequate, or that their benefit assessments were too high.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of Bonigut, Curtis, and Barlow Square, finding that the engineer's valuation of the affected lands as 'bush land' at $1,200 per acre was fair and reasonable, given the lands were in an environmental protection zone, frequently flooded, and had no development or agricultural potential.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Milleman appeal, holding that a partial municipal tax exemption for conservation lands does not exempt the property from drainage assessments.

In the Kedra appeal, the Tribunal found the engineer had erroneously valued the land as a residential building lot and ordered the allowances reduced to the bush land rate.

The Gleason appeal was resolved by minutes of settlement.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a new municipal drainage system to divert flood water from the Town of Exeter.

The proposed drain would be located on the appellants' agricultural lands and was designed to an unusually high 100-year storm standard.

The Tribunal found multiple instances of non-compliance with the Drainage Act during the administrative process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the benefits of the proposed works were not commensurate with the estimated costs due to the excessive design standard.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the Planning Act prevailed over the Drainage Act, but ultimately granted the appeal and set aside the engineer's report.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act, arguing that the existing tile drain across his agricultural lands was sufficient and did not need to be replaced, and that his assessments should be reduced accordingly.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the existing drain was in poor repair, too shallow, and had insufficient capacity for the increased flows from the reconstructed upstream tile.

The Tribunal found the proposed reconstruction necessary and the assessments fair, dismissing the appeals.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding his assessment for the Greisbach Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued his assessment of approximately 75% of the total cost was unfair, as upstream landowners needed the drain more and his property did not experience flooding.

The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the new tile drain was to convey surface water from the road and upstream lands.

The Tribunal adjusted the benefit/outlet assessment split from 75%/25% to 60%/40% and reduced the appellant's total assessment from $21,618 to $13,450, redistributing the costs to the upstream landowners and the municipality.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drainage works under section 64 of the Drainage Act, citing soil erosion and substandard construction.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to address the outstanding repair issues.

The Tribunal formalized the settlement and dismissed the municipality's request for costs against the appellant, finding that both parties shared responsibility for the communication breakdown that necessitated the hearing.