Jeffrey Hewitt

The Town of Fort Erie applied to correct an engineer's report regarding the Zavitz Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal previously granted the appeal, ordered amendments to the report, and awarded compensation to a landowner, Mr. Clee, for property damage.

In this costs decision, the Tribunal determined the apportionment of costs.

The Tribunal awarded Mr. Clee his legal and consulting fees, and awarded the Town its engineering costs for the amended report.

The Tribunal ordered the City of Port Colborne to pay these costs out of its general funds, finding that the City's Drainage Superintendent caused the significant errors and that assessing the costs against the watershed would be inappropriate.

The initiating municipality applied to the Tribunal under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to correct gross errors in an engineer's report for a municipal drain.

The proposed modifications included upgrading two culverts, adjusting a trail grade line, and relocating the working platform to the north side of the drain.

A landowner objected to the relocation of the working platform, as the municipality's drainage superintendent had already improperly directed a contractor to clear trees on his property contrary to the original approved report.

The Tribunal approved the engineering modifications as they did not adversely affect the drain's capacity.

However, the Tribunal ordered the municipality to pay the landowner $8,000 in compensation for the unauthorized removal of his tree buffer, which is not to be assessed to the drain's cost.

The appellant appealed a municipal engineer's report proposing a new drainage works under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the drain should be constructed on an alternative alignment or as a mutual agreement drain.

The appellant claimed the proposed works would negatively impact his property and proposed agricultural development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the engineer's evidence that the proposed alignment was hydraulically efficient, necessary to alleviate surface ponding, and that the appellant's alternative was significantly more expensive and technically inferior.

The Tribunal affirmed the municipality's right to proceed via petition rather than mutual agreement.

The applicants brought a complaint under the Farm Implements Act regarding the alleged failure of the hydraulic system of a tractor purchased from the respondent.

At the commencement of the scheduled five-day hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that the matter had settled.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the McNain Municipal Drain Improvements under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant challenged the design of a drop structure on their property, the damage allowances, and the assessments levied against them, including a Section 24 Special Benefit assessment for additional engineering costs.

The Tribunal granted the appeals in part, ordering minor modifications to the drop structure design and reducing the Section 24 Special Benefit assessment from $60,000 to $30,000, finding that the improved design also benefited upstream lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's requests for damage allowances and changes to the Benefit/Outlet cost split.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the drain was over-designed, an earth berm was improperly designed, a private drain was illegal, and their lands should not be assessed.

The Tribunal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the design standards appropriate and the private drain legal.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the engineer's report be modified to include a compacted clay key in the earth berm design and to plug an existing tile beneath the berm to properly support wetland development.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's report for the Royal Oak Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, challenging the costs and necessity of certain proposed works, including hydro seeding, riffles, Flexamat erosion control, tree removal, and farm crossings.

The Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering modifications to the report to require hand seeding on flat areas, the use of the lowest-costing Flexamat-type product, the removal of an at-grade crossing on one appellant's property, and consideration of an allowance for loss of access.

The Tribunal otherwise upheld the report's recommendations, finding the proposed works necessary and technically sound.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of the McClure Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the watershed area, the Benefit/Outlet cost splits, the treatment of two culverts, and the allowances provided.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's methodology for the cost splits and the watershed area, noting it was based on detailed field investigations.

However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the easterly culvert should be classified as an erosion control feature and the westerly culvert as the primary access to the appellant's lands.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be revised to incorporate these culverts into the drain and adjust the Special Benefit assessment for the westerly culvert accordingly.

The appeal was granted in part.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment of his agricultural property for the construction and future maintenance of a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that his land did not hold surface water and received no benefit from the drain.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's professional opinion evidence that the property sloped toward the drain and contributed runoff, justifying the assessment for outlet and maintenance liability.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessment was found to be fair and reasonable.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Ouellette Drain East under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, the drain should flow west instead of east, the allowances provided were excessive, and their assessments should be reduced.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that the proposed easterly flow to the Marsh Creek Drain was a sufficient outlet, the allowances were properly calculated, and the assessments were appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the Report to reflect adjustments made at the Court of Revision.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Reconsidered Drainage Report for the Fourth Concession Drain East and Cutoff Drains under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed $381,000 project, which expanded from simple requests for culvert replacements into a complete reconstruction and diversion, was unnecessary and too costly.

The Tribunal found that there were no significant drainage problems justifying the extensive works and that the estimated costs were not commensurate with the benefits to be derived.

The Tribunal granted the appeals, set aside the Report, and ordered the Town to proceed with the requested culvert replacements using an existing 1993 report.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the Centre Dingman Creek Drain Branch 'D' under the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the assessments levied against their properties, the design of the drainage works, and the adequacy of compensation and allowances.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that the proposed works were necessary to address drainage issues in the urban community of Mossley and that the design met provincial standards.

The Tribunal found the assessment methodology to be logical, equitable, and compliant with the Act, and declined to modify the drainage works or adjust the assessments.

The appellants, landowners within the Little Creek Municipal Drain watershed, appealed the Engineer's Reassessment Report for future maintenance of the drain.

They argued that the Engineer's ratio of 'benefit' to 'outlet' assessment unfairly burdened their lands.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer relied too heavily on previous reports and that, for maintenance projects, benefit assessments should not apply because maintenance simply preserves the existing outlet for all lands in the drainage area without providing new benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer to revise the assessment schedule to eliminate benefit assessments and base it solely on outlet assessments.

The Tribunal also ordered corrections for overlooked woodlots and ownership errors, and directed the municipality to proceed with requested maintenance work.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the Ruscom River Outlet No. 3 Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the damage allowances and benefit assessments levied against their property.

The Tribunal upheld the allowances provided for the loss of a tree and a boathouse, finding no compelling evidence to adjust them.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part regarding the benefit assessment, reducing it from $9,434 to $7,144 by adjusting the cost allocation for a new steel sheet pile wall to match the allocation used for filling the boat well.