Herbert Todgham

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the 8th Concession East Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the Minutes of Settlement, which amended the assessment schedule and relocated a borrow pit, and ordered the engineer and the municipality to modify the report, tender documents, and by-law accordingly.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the proposed Harmony Road Drain in the Township of Delhi.

The appellants argued that the drain would not benefit their lands and that the costs were not commensurate with the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drainage works would provide a necessary outlet for upstream lands and that the overall advantages to the watershed outweighed the costs.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's assessments as fair and reasonable, dismissing all appeals.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Loach Municipal Drain, arguing that the drain should be relocated and their assessment reduced.

The Tribunal found that the proposed location of the drain was appropriate and dismissed the appeal regarding the location.

However, the Tribunal amended the assessment schedule, determining that a ratio of approximately 75% benefit and 25% outlet was more appropriate than the 50:50 ratio set by the Court of Revision.

The City of Sarnia applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Bird Drain.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the Township had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application, permitting the City to appoint an engineer to vary the assessment.

No costs were ordered.

The Town of Lakeshore applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a modification to By-law No. 16-94 concerning the Discoverer Outlet Drain.

The modification involved realigning the drain on the Stoney Point Sportsmen's Club property, reducing construction costs, and increasing allowances for land used.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under Section 51 of the Drainage Act, subject to terms including notice to landowners and a 14-day appeal period.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed Huys Drain.

They argued that the proposed covered drain would damage their property, affect their water well, cause erosion, and potentially harm threatened softshell turtles.

They also contested the 'cut off' benefit assessment.

The Tribunal found the engineer's design appropriate, noting it was the most direct and natural route and would require the least maintenance.

The Tribunal also upheld the assessment, finding that the works would provide substantial protection from further washouts on the appellants' property.

The appeals were dismissed.

Several landowners appealed an engineer's report recommending improvements to the Lawrence Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants, primarily upstream landowners, argued that the existing drain was adequate for their needs and that they would not benefit from the proposed new tile drain.

The respondent municipality and downstream landowners supported the improvements, citing flooding issues and the inadequacy of the 67-year-old existing tile drain to meet modern agricultural drainage standards.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed works were necessary to meet the long-term drainage needs of the watershed and that upstream owners have a legal obligation to contribute to the improvement of their outlet.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal regarding the 8th Concession East Drain.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal involved allegations of negligence and substandard work related to a 1991 repair, which were also the subject of a motion before the Referee.

To avoid duplicate proceedings and potentially conflicting decisions, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and deferred to the Referee's jurisdiction to determine the necessity of the work, cost allocation, and liability.

The appellants appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing it deviated from the Engineer's Report.

The Township applied to amend the by-law to reflect the 'as-built' conditions.

During construction, changes were made to water retention terraces without the appellants' knowledge or the Engineer's prior approval, benefiting a neighbouring landowner while placing the burden of water retention entirely on the appellants.

The Tribunal found the drain functioned satisfactorily and declined to order reconstruction.

However, the Tribunal ordered monetary adjustments to compensate the appellants for the unfair process and the neighbouring landowner's unearned benefits, and approved the addendum to the Engineer's Report.

The Township of Euphemia applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Bolton Drain.

The Township of Mosa confirmed it had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application and permitted the appointment of an engineer.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Coultis Drain under the Drainage Act.

At the hearing, the engineer who prepared the report advised that the channel had significantly eroded since the design was completed, rendering the proposed work inadequate and requiring a complete redesign with substantially higher costs.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to an engineer for further consideration.

Because the engineers for both sides failed to communicate these known issues in a timely manner prior to the hearing, the Tribunal ordered that the costs of the hearing not be added to the cost of the drainage works, and made no order as to costs.

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 landowners appealed their benefit assessments for the proposed Foster Crescent Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued their assessments were disproportionate to the benefits received, citing factors such as property elevation and lack of flooding.

The Tribunal found that the engineer's method of distributing benefit costs based on property size was generally equitable given the history of lot filling in the area.

However, the Tribunal reduced the assessments for two properties due to their elevation and position in the watershed, and correspondingly increased the assessment against the Town's road allowance, which was found to be under-assessed.

The remaining appeals were dismissed.

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 the township council's decision not to appoint an engineer to prepare a report to improve or repair a municipal drain.

The appellant sought to relocate the drain to alleviate flooding on his farmland but refused to pay any costs associated with the engineering study or construction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant provided no technical evidence that his proposed solution was feasible and that he would be required under the Drainage Act to bear a significant portion of the costs, which he refused to pay.

The Township of Longueuil applied to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal to review the account of McNeely Engineering Consultants Limited for work on the Mill Creek Municipal Drain.

The Township argued that the engineer should have advised earlier that the project was impractical under section 40 of the Drainage Act and that fees incurred after that point should not be paid.

The Tribunal extended the time for filing the application under section 100 of the Act.

The Tribunal found deficiencies in the engineer's work but concluded that the responsibility was shared between the engineer, the municipal council, and the ratepayers.

The Tribunal confirmed the engineer's accounts up to the April 17, 1996 hearing and ordered the engineer to provide all original information to the Township.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, claiming the Nelson Street Outlet Municipal Drain was constructed in the wrong location.

The Tribunal found that the drain was not constructed to the specifications of the engineer's report due to unanticipated construction difficulties.

However, because there was little immediate advantage to relocating the drain, the Tribunal ordered the respondent municipality to pay the appellant an allowance of $4,000 for future reconstruction costs, allowing the appellant to relocate the drain at its convenience.

The Township of Hay applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Koehler Municipal Drain.

The Village of Hensall confirmed it had no objections.

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

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Brick Road Drain.

The appellant experienced flooding on his property after a heavy rainstorm but admitted he was unsure if the issue was design or construction.

The respondent's engineer and drainage superintendent testified the drain was constructed to specifications.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it frivolous as the appellant provided no evidence that the construction failed to meet specifications, and ordered the appellant to pay $1,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for proposed work on the South Vance Drain.

The engineer's report proposed replacing a culvert, relocating the appellant's access culvert, and replacing an open ditch with a tile drain.

During the hearing, it became apparent that none of the assessed ratepayers, including the appellant, wanted the work on the appellant's land.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer to delete all work except the culvert replacement for another ratepayer, and adjusted the assessment for that culvert.

The appellant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs for creating confusion regarding the requested work.