H.H. Todgham

Several landowners appealed the assessments levied against their properties for the Chappus Drainage System under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the Special Benefit Assessment for installing new, larger private drain crossing culverts was excessive compared to the fair market value of their lands.

The Tribunal agreed that assessing such large sums against small parcels with meagre returns was inequitable and ordered a 50% reduction in the Special Benefit Assessment for drain crossing culverts, with the difference added to the Town's assessment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed an appeal regarding the assessment of agricultural lands with a subsisting registered plan of subdivision, finding that a fixed per-lot levy was proper given the probable potential future use of the lands.

The appellants appealed the benefit and outlet assessments levied against their lands for the Fuller Drain Extension.

The drainage works were initiated by a petition from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) after highway reconstruction destroyed the existing private drain outlet, causing ponding.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the works was to provide an outlet for highway waters and that the MTO should bear a larger share of the costs.

The Tribunal ordered reductions in the assessments against the appellants' lands and increased the assessment against the MTO.

The Tribunal also struck out the separate schedule for future maintenance, ordering that maintenance be assessed on the same basis as construction.

The appellant appealed the benefit assessment levied against his lands for the future maintenance of a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that his assessment of approximately 25% of the maintenance costs for the reach over his lands was excessive compared to a previous report.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was too high given the appellant's location at the downstream end of the drain and his establishment of a grass buffer strip to protect the banks.

The Tribunal ordered a 50% reduction in the benefit assessments for the appellant and a neighbouring property, with the reduction added to the upstream outlet assessments.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the repair and improvement of the Zaburney Drain.

The appellants objected to the provision of a 10-foot grass buffer strip on both sides of the drain, the casting of excavated spoil on their lands, and their assessment for the works.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal held that the Engineer had jurisdiction to take lands for a buffer strip and to direct the disposal of spoil.

However, the Tribunal found no justification for a mandatory buffer strip on the south side of the drain, where no surface waters entered, and ordered the buffer strip provisions deleted from the Report.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's method of alternating spoil disposal and confirmed the assessments as equitable.

The appeal was allowed in part to remove the buffer strip requirement, but dismissed on all other grounds.

The Township of Morris initiated an improvement to the Warwick Municipal Drain.

The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) objected, claiming the open portion of the drain was a fish habitat and its enclosure would violate the Fisheries Act.

The Township applied to amend the Engineer's Report to leave the portion open, while the appellants withdrew their appeal.

The Tribunal held that the MNR, acting as an agent for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has no jurisdiction to demand modifications to drainage works constructed under the provincial Drainage Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the Township's application to amend the report, ordered the construction to proceed as originally designed, and ordered the MNR to pay $500 in costs for the delay and expenses caused by its jurisdictional claims.

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) appealed a Court of Revision decision that reduced the drainage benefit assessment for agricultural lands and correspondingly increased MTO's assessment for the Hargreaves Drain 1994.

The drainage works were primarily required to provide an outlet for a newly constructed storm sewer system on Highway 401.

The Tribunal found that MTO has a legal duty to take artificially collected surface waters to a sufficient outlet, and that the agricultural lands downstream received minimal benefit from the works.

The Tribunal varied the assessment, ordering that MTO's benefit assessment be increased by $9,000, with a corresponding decrease applied to all agricultural lands north of the highway.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the repair and improvement of the Mills Drain.

The proceeding was initiated by the Township of Dover following a notice of repair from an owner in the Township of Chatham.

The Engineer surveyed and recommended work on the entire drain, including portions in Chatham, without specific instructions or a proper petition.

The Tribunal found irregularities in the process and held that the upstream work in Chatham should remain in the Report but not proceed until requested by an assessed owner or recommended by the Chatham Drainage Superintendent.

The downstream work was ordered to proceed.

The assessment appeal of Phyllis Brodie was dismissed.

The Engineer's account was approved, but he was denied compensation for attending the hearing or amending the Report due to his role in the procedural irregularities.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the Port Bruce Drain, arguing that the flooding problem was primarily caused by the Ministry of Transportation's reconstruction of Highway No. 73, which acted as a dam.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the equivalent area factor used for the highway should be increased.

The Tribunal ordered that all outlet assessments levied against the lands in the watershed be reduced by 20%, with the reduction added to the outlet assessment of the Ministry of Transportation.

The benefit assessments were found to be equitable and were not disturbed.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report concerning the Johnson Municipal Drain, East Branch, arguing that the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, the drainage works should be modified, and the compensation provided was inadequate.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the modification of the works and the cost-benefit analysis, finding no authority to extend the works upstream and no evidence to support relocation.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that adequate working space existed to avoid damaging the appellants' tree farm.

However, the Tribunal granted the appellants a $300 allowance under s. 31 of the Drainage Act for the incorporation of their existing ditch into the municipal drain.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain extension necessitated by the reconstruction of Highway 401.

The appellants argued that the proposed detention and infiltration ponds should not be located on their lands and that their benefit assessments were excessive.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal ordered that the infiltration pond be relocated to the highway right-of-way and reduced the benefit assessments of the affected landowners by 50%, shifting those costs to the Ministry of Transportation, which was the primary beneficiary of the drainage works.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Highway No. 7 Drainage Works in the Township of Woolwich.

The appellants challenged the proposed modifications to the drain, the adequacy of allowances for land taken and crop damage, and the benefit and outlet liability assessments.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the drain modifications and allowances, finding the Engineer's design appropriate and the allowances generous.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the benefit assessments, increasing the amounts levied against Highway No. 7, Regional Road No. 30, and Waterloo Flowers, as the drainage works were primarily constructed to provide outlets for them.

The Tribunal also ruled that the costs for enhancing or preserving fish habitat could not be assessed against the affected lands under the Drainage Act, as such works do not fall within the definition of drainage works.

One panel member dissented on the fish habitat issue.

The appellants filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The Township Council accepted the petition and decided to proceed, but subsequently failed to appoint an engineer without providing reasons.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that once a council decides to proceed with a petition, it is bound to appoint an engineer unless cogent reasons are provided.

The Tribunal ordered the Township to appoint an engineer within 60 days, failing which the Tribunal would make the appointment.

The appellants appealed the assessments levied against their lands for the construction of the Modde Drain.

The Engineer had designed a covered drain to provide an outlet for subsurface drainage from the northerly lands, and a shallow open drain to intercept surface flows and prevent flooding on the southerly lands.

The Engineer assessed the southerly lands for the covered drain based on historical ratios from a 1923 Award Drain.

The Tribunal found no justification for assessing the southerly lands for the covered drain, as they received no benefit or outlet from it.

The Tribunal also found that the northerly lands should bear part of the costs of the open drain, as it aided in the efficient removal of their surface flows.

The Tribunal ordered a revised schedule of assessment and amended the maintenance provisions accordingly.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a storm sewer and pumping system for a residential area along Lake Erie.

The appellant argued the project was premature, too costly, and could create a health hazard by impounding polluted waters.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the drainage system was carefully designed, necessary to solve existing flooding and road maintenance problems, and that there was no expert evidence to justify modifying the proposed system.

Several landowners and the Township of Springwater appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Stone/Ververs Municipal Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the benefit assessment for one landowner, G. Ververs, to zero, redistributing it to others.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found the Engineer's original assessments were properly calculated and restored them.

The Tribunal also increased the allowance granted to Ververs for crop damage from $300 to $600, assessing the increase proportionally against the main drain watershed.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the McBrayne Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant sought to have his benefit assessment removed and to have other landowners assessed for cutoff benefit and the cost of an access culvert.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the appellant's benefit assessment and the cutoff benefit for other landowners, finding the engineer's methodology sound.

However, the Tribunal varied the report to assess two other landowners for a portion of the cost of an access culvert that primarily benefited their lands, reducing the special benefit assessment against the municipality.

The Tribunal also awarded costs against the appellant, characterizing his appeal as bordering on vexatious given his long history of pursuing the municipality for an outlet for his subsurface drainage system.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the repair of washouts in the Abray Drain.

The Report assessed the majority of the erosion control costs against upstream landowners, theorizing the damage was caused by water flowing in the drain.

The Tribunal found that the physical evidence overwhelmingly indicated the washouts were caused by surface waters flowing from the adjoining landowner's property into the drain.

Consequently, the Tribunal varied the assessment, ordering that the costs of the erosion control work be levied primarily against the adjoining landowner.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessments for a proposed drainage works.

The Engineer had initially assessed all eight properties equally for benefit, but the Court of Revision reduced the assessments for two smaller properties and redistributed the cost.

The Tribunal found that while the Engineer's premise of equal benefit for rear yard catchbasins was logical, adjustments were necessary for the common elements.

The Tribunal set the benefit assessment for the two smaller properties at $1,200 each and distributed the reduction equally among the other six properties.

The Tribunal also ordered that the private catchbasins be maintained by the property owners, not as part of the drainage works.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the construction of the Gill Road Municipal Drain, arguing that the assessments levied against their residential properties were inequitable and that they were misled about the availability of government grants.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the drainage works was to upgrade Gill Road to service a new residential development.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the benefit assessment against Gill Road to be increased to $70,000, with the corresponding reduction applied to the residential properties.

The Tribunal also reduced one appellant's outlet liability assessment to zero, finding no justification for it, but otherwise upheld the engineer's assessments for agricultural and institutional lands.