Jack Young is a vice-chair at the Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal with 118 decisions on record from 2000 to 2013. Key areas include administrative law, other tribunals, environmental law.

What tribunal does Jack Young sit on?

Jack Young sits on the Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

What areas of law does Jack Young decide?

Jack Young's most common areas include Administrative Law (112 decisions), Other Tribunals (105 decisions), Environmental Law (50 decisions). Jack Young has handled 118 decisions across 4 areas.

How many decisions has Jack Young made?

Jack Young has 118 decisions on record from 2000 to 2013.

Who frequently appears before Jack Young?

Representatives who frequently appear before Jack Young include Keith Armstrong, Joanne Cook, Belfa Thomas.

Jack Young — Vice-Chair

OAFRAATNov 29, 2013

Appeals of drainage assessments dismissed; Engineer's Report confirmed as consistent with the Drainage Act.

The appellants appealed the assessments and the Engineer's Report regarding the Luckins Drain West and Luckins Drain East.

The appellants argued that they derived negligible benefit from the drain and that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the principles applied by the Engineer to determine the Schedule of Assessments were consistent with the Drainage Act and generally accepted practice.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Court of Revision and confirmed the assessments set out in the Engineer's Report.

Luckins Drain (Re), 2013 ONAFRAAT 16

OAFRAATSep 30, 2013

Engineer's Report set aside due to municipality's failure to provide statutory notice to conservation authority.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act concerning a proposed retaining wall to address bank erosion on her property.

The appellant argued the report was deficient and that the municipality failed to provide the required statutory notice to the conservation authority prior to appointing the engineer.

The Tribunal found that the municipality failed to provide the mandatory 30 days' notice to the conservation authority under section 78(2) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal identified numerous deficiencies in the Engineer's Report, including missing plans, profiles, and specifications required by section 8.

Consequently, the appeal was granted and the Engineer's Report was set aside.

Survashi Sood v. Town of Lakeshore, 2013 ONAFRAAT 13

OAFRAATJul 3, 2013

Drainage assessment confirmed; forested property benefits from access to a new legal drain outlet.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Haws Drain 2012, arguing that their forested property received no benefit from the proposed drainage works and should not be assessed $911.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's methods for calculating the assessments to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments, noting that the property would benefit from access to a new legal drain outlet, which enhances the property's value.

Haws Drain 2012 (Re), 2013 ONAFRAAT 9

OAFRAATMay 1, 2013

Tribunal restores original Engineer's Report assessments for drainage works, overturning Court of Revision's unsupported adjustments.

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waglers appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Gingerich Road Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the Waglers' benefit assessment and increased the Region's assessment.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's original calculations to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal set aside the Court of Revision's decision and confirmed the assessments as set out in the Engineer's Report.

Gingerich Road Drain (Re), 2013 ONAFRAAT 4

OAFRAATJan 4, 2013

Appeal of municipal drain engineer's report dismissed; proposed erosion control design confirmed.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain project designed to convey stormwater and control erosion in a steep gully area.

The appellants argued the project was excessive and unwarranted, suggesting less expensive alternatives like rock riprap.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the design was appropriate for the extreme gradient and high water velocities, and that the appellants' property was properly assessed.

The appeal was denied and the engineer's report was confirmed without modification.

MacKenzie Camp Road Municipal Drain (RE), 2013 ONAFRAAT 1

OAFRAATNov 30, 2012

Appeals of drainage assessments and engineer's report dismissed for lack of evidence and insufficient outlet.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Beets Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his lands did not require additional drainage, that the proposed drain would interfere with his farming operations, and that the allowances provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support modifying the assessments or allowances.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's proposed modifications to the drainage works, finding they did not provide a sufficient outlet as required by the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied and the Engineer's Report was confirmed.

Van Beets Municipal Drain (Re), 2012 ONAFRAAT 36

OAFRAATOct 4, 2012

Tribunal amends drainage assessment to reflect actual water flow and incorporates withdrawn petition costs as special benefit.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Driel Drain.

The appellant argued that 3.9 hectares of his property drained into the Main Drain rather than the Sykes Branch 1, and that $7,500 in engineering costs for a withdrawn petition should be assessed as a special benefit under the main report rather than separately.

The Tribunal found in favour of the appellant on both issues, directing the Engineer to amend the assessments accordingly.

Van Driel Drain (RE), 2012 ONAFRAAT 30

OAFRAATAug 3, 2012

Township granted permission to procure engineer's reports to vary drainage assessments following municipal annexation.

The Township of Blandford-Blenheim applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessments on several existing municipal drains.

The request was necessitated by the annexation of lands and roads by the City of Woodstock in 2005, which rendered the existing assessment schedules unworkable.

The City of Woodstock and the Township of Norwich supported the application.

The Tribunal found that the requirements of section 76 were met and granted the Township permission to appoint an engineer to procure the necessary reports.

Blandford-Blenheim Applications (Re), 2012 ONAFRAAT 20

OAFRAATMay 11, 2012

Drainage assessment appeal dismissed; appellant failed to prove highway expansion warranted higher assessment for MTO.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment for the Laister Drain Branches 1, 3, and 4 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) should be assessed a higher amount for the drain reconstruction because the recent expansion of Highway 401 caused additional water to flow onto his property.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the drainage engineer, who testified that the MTO watershed area and runoff coefficients had been appropriately calculated and increased to account for the highway expansion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to contradict the engineer's findings or justify amending the schedule of assessments.

Dunford Royal Cattle Company Inc. v. Township of Blandford-Blenheim, 2012 ONAFRAAT 8

OAFRAATNov 17, 2011

Application to correct an error in a municipal drainage engineer's report granted on consent.

The Town of Lakeshore applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to correct an error in the engineer's report for the Smyth Drain West.

A discrepancy in the topographical survey resulted in unnecessary land allowances being calculated.

The Tribunal granted the application, ordering the correction of the report, the reduction of section 29 allowances, and the revision of the road shoulder specifications, with the consent of the affected landowners.

Edgefield Sideroad Branch of the Smyth Drain West (Re), 2011 ONAFRAAT 34

OAFRAATJul 13, 2011

Appeals against drainage works and assessments denied; project deemed necessary and cost distribution reasonable.

Several property owners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the Engineer's Report regarding the Glencairn Drainage Works, which proposed a cut-off drain to address severe flooding in the hamlet.

The appellants argued that the project was unnecessary, that alternative solutions like road ditches should have been considered, and that their individual assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the project was necessary to divert agricultural water around the residential area and that the cost distribution (80% to the municipality, 20% to landowners) was reasonable based on the benefit derived.

The appeals were denied.

Glencairn Drainage Works, 2011 ONAFRAAT 25

OAFRAATJun 1, 2011

Tribunal adjusted drainage assessment ratios and ordered a nominal allowance for an existing drain enclosure.

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

The project involved incorporating an existing private drain enclosure into the municipal drain and replacing a failed section.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of prior engineering costs, the adequacy of allowances for right-of-way and existing drains, the assessment ratios, and the location of the outlet.

The Tribunal ordered a nominal allowance for the existing drain, adjusted the Benefit/Outlet assessment ratios to 60/40, removed a portion of the prior engineering costs, and confirmed the existing outlet location.

Requests for costs were denied.

Story Drain (RE), 2011 ONAFRAAT 14

OAFRAATFeb 17, 2011

Tribunal orders appointment of new engineer for drainage works to avoid perception of bias.

The Municipality of Southwest Middlesex requested a review of a Tribunal decision regarding the Miller Drainage Works.

The Tribunal had previously found that the original engineer was unduly influenced by the Municipality but allowed him to continue preparing the final report.

On review, the Tribunal found that allowing the same engineer to continue could create a perception of bias.

The Tribunal granted the review in part, ordering the Municipality to appoint a new engineer to complete the project.

Miller Drain (RE) Request for Review, 2011 ONAFRAAT 7

OAFRAATNov 15, 2010

Tribunal modifies drainage report, ordering municipality and engineer to bear accrued interest and hearing costs.

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.

Ross Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 32

OAFRAATOct 28, 2010

Engineer's report for drainage works amended to increase allowances and adjust maintenance easements.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report for the Mindemoya Drain and Yonge Street Reconstruction project under the Drainage Act.

One appellant withdrew due to health reasons.

The remaining two appellants challenged the adequacy of allowances for loss of access, the location of maintenance easements, and the handling of excavated soil and trees on their properties.

The Tribunal ordered amendments to the report, including relocating a maintenance easement, increasing allowances for loss of access and tree removal, requiring specific soil handling procedures, and protecting sinkholes as part of the drainage works.

The Tribunal also ordered the removal of certain watershed areas from the assessment schedule.

Mindemoya Drain (RE) and Yonge Street, 2010 ONAFRAAT 37

OAFRAATAug 31, 2010

Drainage assessment appeals denied; costs fairly allocated to upstream landowners.

The appellants appealed their assessments under the Engineer's Report for the Dowdall Municipal Drain.

They argued that the municipality should be 100% responsible for the costs of two sections of the drain due to the construction of a road culvert and past illegal reconstruction.

The Tribunal found that the improvements provided benefits beyond the road culvert and that the construction costs were fairly assessed to upstream landowners.

The appeals were denied.

Dowdall Municipal Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 27

OAFRAATAug 20, 2010

Drainage appeal dismissed and $10,000 in costs awarded against appellant for bad conduct and boycotting hearing.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

After making numerous unsuccessful adjournment requests and failing to follow procedural orders, the appellant and his counsel boycotted the scheduled appeal hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment motion and the appeal due to the appellant's failure to attend and adduce evidence.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in costs against the appellant for unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, noting the multiple delay tactics and disrespect for the Tribunal's processes.

Richard Gosselin v. Township of Brethour, 2010 ONAFRAAT 26

OAFRAATAug 19, 2010

Drainage assessment reduced by $130 to correct minor discrepancy in calculated watershed area.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the Thorpe-Ellis Municipal Drain, arguing that his outlet assessment was too high because a portion of his land drained into a different drain.

The Tribunal found a minor discrepancy of 3.4 acres in the calculated drainage area.

To ensure the total assessed area did not exceed the appellant's total land ownership, the Tribunal ordered a $130.00 reduction in the appellant's assessment, adding the amount to the municipality's road assessment.

The Tribunal also ordered revisions to the Assessment Schedule and the rescission of the provisional by-law until the schedule was updated.

Thorpe-Ellis Municipal Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 25

OAFRAATJul 28, 2010

Tribunal awards compensation and directs repairs for quality of construction issues on a municipal drain.

Landowners appealed the quality of construction of the Hambly Sabourin & Beaulac-Beach Municipal Drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the contractor deviated from the intended access route, causing damage to Sylvain Gauthier's property, and awarded him $500.

For Garry Beach, the Tribunal ordered the re-construction of a removed property line fence, directed the Engineer to inspect and repair channel rip-rap, and awarded $800 for crop loss due to delayed construction of a culvert crossing.

Other claims regarding drain maintenance, internal fences, and culvert placement were dismissed.

HSBB Municipal Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 24

OAFRAATJul 19, 2010

Appeals regarding municipal drain design and assessments denied; engineer's report and cost apportionment upheld.

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.

Luckins Drain (Re), 2013 ONAFRAAT 16

Survashi Sood v. Town of Lakeshore, 2013 ONAFRAAT 13

Haws Drain 2012 (Re), 2013 ONAFRAAT 9

Gingerich Road Drain (Re), 2013 ONAFRAAT 4

MacKenzie Camp Road Municipal Drain (RE), 2013 ONAFRAAT 1

Van Beets Municipal Drain (Re), 2012 ONAFRAAT 36

Van Driel Drain (RE), 2012 ONAFRAAT 30

Blandford-Blenheim Applications (Re), 2012 ONAFRAAT 20

Dunford Royal Cattle Company Inc. v. Township of Blandford-Blenheim, 2012 ONAFRAAT 8

Edgefield Sideroad Branch of the Smyth Drain West (Re), 2011 ONAFRAAT 34

Glencairn Drainage Works, 2011 ONAFRAAT 25

Story Drain (RE), 2011 ONAFRAAT 14

Miller Drain (RE) Request for Review, 2011 ONAFRAAT 7

Ross Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 32

Mindemoya Drain (RE) and Yonge Street, 2010 ONAFRAAT 37

Dowdall Municipal Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 27

Richard Gosselin v. Township of Brethour, 2010 ONAFRAAT 26

Thorpe-Ellis Municipal Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 25

HSBB Municipal Drain (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 24

VanBuuren Municipal Drain Branch “A” (Re), 2010 ONAFRAAT 22

agent for appellant Jennifer Noss

agent for Lois Hayter

agent for Margaret Mitchell, assessed landowner

an assessed owner

appellant

Appellant

Appellant and assessed landowner

Appellant and landowner

appellant and representative of Lorne Ireland, appellant

appellant, JEMA Foods

Appellants

assessed landowner

Assessed Landowner

assessed landowner, 14 Charles St.

assessed landowner, 19 Charles St.

assessed landowner, 26 Charles St.

assessed landowner, appellant

assessed landowner in the Elliott Drain watershed

assessed landowners

assessed landowner, witness

assessed owner

assisting the appellant

au nom de l’intimée, la municipalité

Ausauble Bayfield Conservation Authority

Clerk of the Municipality

Counsel for the Appellant, Regional Municipality of Waterloo

Counsel for the Municipality

counsel for the respondent, the City of Kawartha Lakes

Counsel for the respondent the Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Counsel for the Township

counsel to appellant

counsel to appellants Leo Harju and John Grimo

counsel to JEMA Foods

counsel to Leo Harju, appellant and John Grimo, appellant Helen Gratto, appellant

counsel to Mr. Leddy

counsel to Nexfor Inc., appellant

counsel to the appellant

counsel to the appellant, Donald Bailey

counsel to the appellants

counsel to the engineer

counsel to the Municipality of Bluewater

counsel to the Municipality of Leamington

counsel to the Municipality of Thames Centre

counsel to the respondent

counsel to the respondent, the City of St. Catharines

counsel to the Township of Laurentian Valley

counsel to the Township of Perth South

counsel to the Tribunal

Deputy Director of Public Works

Deputy Reeve, Township of Brethour

downstream landowner

drainage engineer on behalf of the Ministry of Transportation

drainage engineer who prepared report

drainage engineer who prepared the engineer's report

Drainage Superintendent

Drainage Superintendent for Bradford West Gwillimbury and Township of King

Drainage Superintendent for Municipality

Drainage Superintendent for the Municipality

drainage superintendent for the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich, respondent

Drainage Superintendent, for the Municipality of Thames Centre