John Johnson

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works would not ameliorate flooding on their properties, objected to the assessment of costs for bank restoration, and argued that the costs of previous incomplete engineering reports should not be assessed to the drain.

The Tribunal dismissed the MacNeils' appeals but adjusted the assessment schedule for the Bank Restoration Improvement Program.

The Tribunal allowed Whisky Run Golf Club's appeals in part, ordering that the engineering fees from previous incomplete reports be borne solely by the Municipality, that a mobile pump be used instead of a permanent pump, and that the cost of pumping be divided as 50% Outlet Liability and 50% Benefit to lands lower than the top of the gates.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the McGee Drain under the Drainage Act.

One appellant reached an agreement with the municipality to revise the report and withdrew his appeal.

The remaining appellants argued their assessment should be reduced because the drainage issues were caused by another landowner.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the assessments in the revised Engineer's Report to be fair and reasonable, and adopted the revised report.

The applicant municipality applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76(1) of the Drainage Act for permission to procure an engineer's report to vary the 1924 Schedule of Assessment for a municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that changes in land use, severances, and the fact that only one-third of the watershed area was assessed justified a variation.

As no assessed persons objected, the Tribunal granted the requested permission.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the special education placement of their child, who was identified as a multihandicapped pupil.

The parents argued the placement in a class for trainable retarded pupils was inappropriate and requested a total communication program with a teacher fluent in sign language.

The Board agreed to provide a total communication program but maintained the current placement was appropriate for the balance of the school year.

The Tribunal denied leave to appeal, finding that the parents' requests regarding teaching methodology and teacher qualifications were outside its scope, and that the Board had made a public commitment to provide an appropriate placement by the next school year.