Herb Todgham

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the repair of the Edgar Sideroad Drain.

The engineer had based the assessments on a 1979 report but later provided a revised schedule that changed almost every property's assessment.

The appellants and other assessed owners raised concerns about the calculation of cut-off benefits, watershed boundaries, and the distribution of costs.

The engineer acknowledged errors and requested the report be referred back.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer for reconsideration under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act, with specific recommendations for the revised report, and ordered that the engineering costs for the revision and hearing not be charged to the drainage project.

Several landowners and municipalities appealed the engineer's report and Court of Revision decisions regarding the Séguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain.

The appellants challenged the assessments, the allowances for land taken and damages, and the proposed alignment of the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the specific appeals but ordered modifications to the engineer's report, including relocating a portion of the drain, adjusting land allowances, and directing that the cost of the road crossing be charged to the road authority pursuant to section 26 of the Drainage Act.

The City of Port Colborne applied to the Tribunal requesting a modification to a municipal by-law concerning the relocation of a portion of the Wignell W2 Municipal Drain.

The proposed work, undertaken entirely at the cost of a local quarry, would relocate the drain to fit into the final quarry configuration and rehabilitation plan.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, directing the engineer to amend the report and the city clerk to replace the relevant drawings and notify affected persons.

Appellants appealed the engineer's report for the Foreman Municipal Drain Improvement under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the assessment of costs for Green Lane Environmental, finding the original outlet and benefit assessments unfair, and ordered modifications to the working width on their property.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals seeking to divert the drain out of the watershed and to increase the allowance for land used, finding the proposed alignment and agricultural land valuation appropriate.

The Tribunal also directed modifications to relocate a portion of the drain on another property and ordered the municipality to pay the actual increased costs resulting from the presence of a municipal road.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report concerning the relocation and repair of the Harkness Drain, arguing that the allowances for damages and tree removal were insufficient and that the drain should not be moved off the road allowance.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to relocate the drain to accommodate road improvements but found that the Road Authority was not assessed enough for the benefit it received.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be amended to increase the special benefit assessment to the Township, increase the allowances for right-of-way and damages for the appellants, modify the piping requirements, and recalculate the allowances for tree removal.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an amended engineer's report for a municipal drain, arguing that their existing private drainage facility should have been incorporated into the design and that they should receive an allowance under section 31 of the Drainage Act.

They also contested the cut-off benefit assessed to their properties.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was restricted to assessment matters and declined to treat it as a rehearing to alter the drain's design.

The Tribunal found that section 31 allowances were inapplicable because the private facility was not incorporated into the municipal works, and upheld the engineer's cut-off benefit assessments as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Johnston Drain, seeking a modification to divert the upper portion of the watershed to the north, increased allowances for crop damage, and changes to the assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed northern diversion offered no cost or design advantage over the engineer's proposed route.

The Tribunal also upheld the crop damage allowance of $600 per acre and the assessments as fair and reasonable, though it ordered the engineer to amend the report to include detailed assessment calculations.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the engineer's report and assessments for the Stefanik Drain.

The appellants argued that they were riparian owners on a natural watercourse and therefore should not be assessed for outlet liability.

The Tribunal conducted a site view and concluded that the channel in question was not a natural watercourse with riparian rights, but rather a swale used as an outlet for tile drainage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drain provided a legal outlet for the upper properties, justifying an outlet assessment.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the assessment ratio, determining that the main purpose of the work was to reclaim land on the lower property, and modified the schedule of assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for the proposed Fekete Drain under the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns about the benefit assessment for an open ditch through their woodlot, the lack of compensation for tree damage, and the size and cost of a farm crossing culvert.

The Tribunal found the benefit assessment for the open ditch was too high compared to downstream properties and ordered it reduced.

However, the Tribunal upheld the engineer's approach to allowances for damages, noting commitments to minimize tree damage during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered the report amended to lengthen the culvert and specify equipment access routes.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment schedule for future maintenance of a section of the O'Brien Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the drain should be treated as one continuous project and that all users should be assessed equally based on acreage.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act requires partitioning the drain for maintenance purposes so that landowners are not assessed for work done upstream of their outlet.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's methodology, which adjusted the previous 1953 assessment to account for subsequent severances, road construction, and drainage diversions.

The appeal was dismissed, with minor amendments ordered to clarify the report's scope.

The appellants, owners of a campground, appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding their assessment for improvements to the Ipperwash Drain.

They argued their benefit assessment was too high and disproportionate to the benefits received.

The Tribunal found the engineer's assessment method appropriate but concluded the specific benefit assessment against the appellants was too high.

The Tribunal ordered the appellants' benefit assessment reduced by $3,000, with that amount redistributed to the outlet assessment of all lands in the watershed.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment of costs for a report on future maintenance of the Zoller Drain and Zoller Drain Extension.

The report's costs were largely driven by the need to convert block assessments to individual lot assessments following the amalgamation of the Village of West Lorne and the Township of Aldborough.

The Tribunal found the engineer's equal per-property assessment method unfair to small non-agricultural lots.

The Tribunal ordered the costs to be reapportioned: a fixed amount to the former Township, a small per-lot fee to the former Village, and the balance to the amalgamated Municipality's roads and streets, reflecting the costs of amalgamation.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a new tile drain to supplement the capacity of the existing Donald Carroll Drain.

The proposed work was requested by one landowner to improve drainage on his property.

The appellants argued that the existing drainage was adequate and that the estimated cost of the work exceeded the expected benefits.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the landowners were satisfied with the existing drainage and that there was no evidence of crop loss or significant land damage on the property of the person requesting the improvement.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefits of the proposed work were not commensurate with its estimated cost and granted the appeals, ordering that the work not proceed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act that recommended replacing three access culverts on a municipal drain.

The appellants had begun repairing their own culvert headwall and argued that their culvert only required maintenance, not full replacement, and objected to the associated costs.

The Tribunal found that while replacement was the prudent engineering solution given the age of the pipes, the appellants should not be forced to undertake the work if they accepted the risk.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellants could opt out of the replacement, provided they assume sole financial responsibility for any necessary maintenance on their culvert for the next five years.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report for improvements to the W.J. Douglas Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements on the appellants' lands were unnecessary and that only maintenance of the existing drain was required.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, reduced the appellants' assessments for the improvements to zero, and referred the report back to the engineer to separate the costs of maintenance from the costs of improvements and to recalculate the assessments.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the assessments in the July 1998 engineer's report for the proposed Hayter Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that the assessments were unfair, as the drain primarily benefited the agricultural property of the petitioning landowner.

The Tribunal found that the engineer's method of calculating the assessments did not comply with the Drainage Act or common law principles regarding surface water and cut-off benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to re-work the assessments in accordance with the principles set out in its decision, and amended the report's provisions regarding maintenance.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Knudsen Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellant argued that the benefit assessment on their property was too high, as their land did not suffer from poor drainage or ponding, unlike upstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the drain on the appellant's property was to provide an outlet for upstream lands, not to benefit the appellant's land.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be amended, reversing the benefit-to-outlet ratio for the appellant's property from 60% benefit / 40% outlet to 40% benefit / 60% outlet.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the Bellcreft Beach Drainage and Pumping System under the Drainage Act, challenging the proposed assessments and suggesting modifications to the drainage works, including a retention pond.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the engineer's flat-rate assessment approach appropriate given the uniform level of protection provided to the area.

The Tribunal also declined to order modifications, noting the lack of engineering evidence supporting the appellants' proposed alternatives.

The City of Port Colborne applied to rescind a 1987 Tribunal order that required the installation of a low lift pumping station on the Point Abino Drain.

Both the City and the Town of Fort Erie supported abandoning the project, and a survey of affected landowners revealed overwhelming opposition to the installation.

The Tribunal granted the motion and revoked the 1987 order, finding that the passage of time without significant flooding problems indicated the pump was no longer necessary.

The Tribunal ordered that the costs incurred to date be divided between the municipalities and assessed against the landowners in the drainage area.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for Branches 'B' and 'C' of the Garvey-Smith Drain.

The appellant argued that he received no benefit from the proposed drainage work and that the costs should be borne by the neighbouring landowner.

The Tribunal reviewed the engineer's assessment calculations, which used the equivalent acreage method, and found the division of costs between outlet and benefit to be appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments as modified by the Court of Revision were upheld.