John Bacher

The appellant appealed under Section 5(2) of the Drainage Act from the City's decision not to accept a new petition for drainage works.

The Tribunal found that an engineering report from a previous petition was still 'in progress' and could be appealed under Section 45(2).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that allowing a new petition for the same drainage problem without a change in conditions was an inappropriate use of the Act's procedures, while encouraging the parties to pursue a self-help solution.

The appellants appealed the assessment for a proposed municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

They argued they were entitled to an allowance for an existing drain, that future maintenance costs for a culvert were improperly apportioned, and that their benefit assessment was incorrect.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the allowance and maintenance apportionment.

However, finding the engineer's explanation of the benefit assessment methodology inadequate, the Tribunal reduced the appellants' benefit assessment by $500 and increased the municipality's assessment by the same amount.

Several ratepayers appealed the assessments and the engineer's report for the Abraham Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellants preferred the installation of a new, larger tile drain rather than the proposed cost-sensitive solution involving a detention berm that would flood a woodlot.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals as no evidence was presented against them.

The Tribunal confirmed the existing report but ordered the Township not to proceed until it received and considered a new report detailing the construction of a large tile drain, giving the ratepayers an opportunity to review the preferred but more expensive option.

Several landowners and the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Highway #24 Drain.

The MTO also appealed under section 48 of the Drainage Act, seeking to modify the drainage works design.

The Tribunal found that the alternative designs proposed by the MTO would not result in significant cost savings or environmental benefits, and thus denied the modification appeal.

Regarding the assessments, the Tribunal found no error in the engineer's original methodology for distributing the costs.

Consequently, the Tribunal granted the MTO's assessment appeal, denied the other landowners' assessment appeals, and restored the assessments to those set out in the original engineer's report.

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 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.

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 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.