Herb Todgham

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that proposed improvements to the Hoy Drain were unnecessary and should be abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the existing drain, designed in 1962, no longer provided adequate drainage for the neighbouring property, which had experienced ongoing water ponding despite the installation of private tiles.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that upgrading the outlet was a necessary first step to resolve the drainage issues.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in costs because they failed to provide credible evidence to support their assertions and necessitated an unnecessary hearing.

Several landowners appealed a Court of Revision decision regarding the Easton Drain assessments under the Drainage Act.

The engineer had originally apportioned the costs of the drain repair and improvement equally between benefit to adjacent lands and outlet for upstream landowners.

The Court of Revision had reduced the assessment for one landowner, shifting the cost to upstream owners.

The Tribunal found the engineer's original assessments were fair and equitable given the watershed's topography, revoked the Court of Revision's decision, and restored the engineer's original assessment schedule.

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

The City and the Town of Fort Erie did not wish to proceed with the work and requested that costs to date be assessed pro rata.

The Tribunal found it lacked sufficient information to make a decision and ordered the City to circulate a notice to all affected landowners inviting written submissions on the engineer's report and the payment of costs.

The appellants, landowners in an upstream agricultural area, appealed an engineer's report concerning the Baxter Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act.

They argued that the costs of enclosing a section of the drain in an urban area were not commensurate with the benefits, and expressed concern about future liability for maintenance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the intangible benefits of the project outweighed the costs and noting that the vast majority of assessed owners supported the project.

However, the Tribunal ordered that a new assessment schedule be prepared before any future maintenance costs for the piped sections are levied against the upstream agricultural lands.

Several assessed landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works were too extensive and that their assessments were disproportionate to the benefits received.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's 50% benefit and 50% outlet assessment division, finding it fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal declined to eliminate the proposed pumping station but ordered minor modifications to the report, including the addition of a high-water alarm system and the removal of a specific culvert.

The appeals were largely dismissed.

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for an order to modify a municipal by-law adopting an engineer's report for the Goff Drain.

During construction, problems were encountered resulting in changes to the project, which were detailed in an addendum report.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments on terms, directing the engineer to amend the addendum and plan to reflect the 'as constructed' details, and ordering the Township to modify and circulate the by-law accordingly.

The Township of Tilbury North applied to the Tribunal to modify an engineer's report and the corresponding by-law for the Klinger-Gaspard Drain and Pump.

A landowner's property had been incorrectly included in the watershed, necessitating a reduction in tile size and project costs.

The Tribunal exercised its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to order the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to conditions including the preparation of new drawings and the provision of notice to affected landowners.

Several ratepayers appealed the engineer's report on the Bearss Drain and Wm.

Michael Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the assessment of costs, the proposed berms, and the allowances.

The Tribunal found that the proposed flood control project was appropriate to address water flowing up the drains from Lake Erie.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the modification of the works and the allowances, but ordered adjustments to the assessments to ensure that abutting lots capable of supporting only one residence were assessed as single buildable parcels.

The appellants appealed the design and assessments in an engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

They argued that the drain's outlet into the river was insufficient, causing erosion and flooding on their property, and requested that the drain be relocated or that they receive an allowance for the insufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the flooding and erosion were caused by the river backing up, not by the water flowing from the drain.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to justify the delay and expense of investigating alternative routes or adjusting the assessments.

Several landowners appealed from the engineer's report on the St. Michaels-Donohue Municipal Drain.

Following an interim order, the township and the engineer found a solution acceptable to the affected landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the township to refer the report back to the engineer for modification incorporating the agreed-upon solution and amended assessment schedule, and outlined the procedure for circulating the modified report and handling any subsequent objections.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report regarding the repair and improvement of the Nantais Drain in the Town of LaSalle.

The appellants argued that the drain should be relocated entirely off their properties or enclosed, and challenged the allowances provided for land taken and working space.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the drain's location and enclosure, finding the proposed design appropriate and beneficial to the landowners at no cost to them.

The Tribunal confirmed most allowances but increased the allowance for one appellant whose property development might be affected by the increased setback requirements.

The appellant appealed the assessment for improvements to a municipal drain adjacent to his property.

The appellant argued that the municipality had previously promised to repair the eroding ditch bank as maintenance at a minimal cost, but later required a new engineer's report for improvements, resulting in a significantly higher assessment.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed work constituted an improvement requiring a new report, the municipality had misled the appellant regarding the cost and timing of repairs.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the appellant's benefit assessment and increased the assessment against the municipality's roads.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessment for the McFeeters Drainage Works.

The Court of Revision had reduced the benefit assessment on a downstream property and transferred the amount to the appellant's assessment.

The Tribunal found that the original assessments proposed by the engineer were appropriate and that the Court of Revision's adjustment resulted in an assessment that was too high for the appellant and too low for the downstream property.

The appeal was granted, and the original engineer's assessments were restored.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report on the proposed Somerville Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants raised concerns regarding the sufficiency of the outlet, the proposed alignment, the adequacy of allowances, and the assessments.

Expert engineers proposed alternative alignments and raised concerns about potential flooding.

The Tribunal found that insufficient information was presented to decide which alternative was most appropriate and that the engineer's report required modifications to conform with the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer for review of the outlet's sufficiency, investigation of alternate routes, modification of assessments, and inclusion of complete plans and specifications, with no further engineering costs to be charged to the drain for these revisions.

Several landowners appealed from the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the engineer's report on a municipal drain.

At the hearing, an appellant proposed an alternative open ditch route that would be cheaper and address specific flooding concerns.

The Tribunal found the proposal warranted further investigation and issued interim directions requiring the engineer and affected owners to meet, outline the alternative work, and attempt to reach a written agreement by a specified date before a final decision is made.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision concerning the assessments for the Leach West Drain 1996.

The appellant argued that the assessment of approximately 50% of the costs to his property was too high, as the flooding on his land was caused by runoff from upstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drain would significantly reduce flooding and erosion on the appellant's property, providing a substantial benefit.

Finding no errors in the engineer's calculations, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessments.

The appellant appealed under section 45(2) of the Drainage Act from the municipal council's failure to adopt an engineer's report for a proposed petition drain.

The council had refused to adopt the report, arguing that the area requiring drainage was smaller than determined by the engineer and that the report was flawed regarding water flow.

The Tribunal found no flaws in the engineer's report, noting that the engineer correctly designed the drain for the entire watershed area.

The Tribunal ordered the council to adopt the report and directed the municipality to pay the appellant's costs, finding that the council had acted irresponsibly by deferring the decision without seeking alternative expert opinions.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal under section 5(2) of the Drainage Act from the municipality's decision not to appoint an engineer to prepare a report to improve a drain.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality appointed an engineer.

The appellant requested the Tribunal set aside the appointment and appoint its own engineer due to the municipality's historical delays.

The Tribunal declined to interfere, noting the municipality had complied with the Act by appointing a qualified engineer and had committed to proceeding expeditiously with the report and interim maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Several ratepayers appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the North Woolsey Drain, arguing that the proposed improvements (enclosing an open ditch with a tile drain) were too costly and that a clean-out would be preferable.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the main purpose of the proposed work was to eliminate the existing open ditch, which primarily benefited the abutting properties.

The Tribunal ordered the outlet assessment to be reduced by half, with the reduction charged to the lands assessed a special benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Township Council to circulate the revised assessment schedule, meet with the parties, and then decide whether to proceed with the project or simply clean out the drain.

Several landowners appealed the Court of Revision's decision confirming the assessments for the Mill Creek Municipal Drain Improvement.

The engineer who prepared the report, Philip McNeely, stated at the hearing that he no longer felt the proposed project was viable and that it should not proceed.

Based on this statement, the Tribunal ordered that the engineer's report be abandoned and provided the affected municipalities and landowners an opportunity to develop an alternative proposal to address the flooding problem.