John Johnston

The appellants appealed a decision of the Court of Revision confirming an Engineer's Report regarding the Ronson Municipal Drain.

The appellants conceded that the drainage works were required but argued that the benefit derived was not commensurate with the cost, and that neighbouring properties should have been assessed for a benefit because surface water flowed from those properties onto the appellants' land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the construction and engineering costs were reasonable and commensurate with the benefit.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, who concluded that only the appellants' property would benefit from the drainage works, over the appellants' expert, who had not conducted independent investigations and lacked experience with the Drainage Act.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain, arguing the appeals were premature as construction was ongoing.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under the Drainage Act or its Rules of Procedure to dismiss the appeals without a hearing on the basis of prematurity.

However, relying on its power to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal vacated the scheduled hearing dates and stayed the appeals until the drainage works are certified as complete.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report for the Northland Estates Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the proposed drain moved 3 meters west to protect mature boundary trees on their property.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act authorizes the construction of drainage works and provides compensation for property and tree damage, superseding the Forestry Act's requirement for mutual consent to injure boundary trees.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed location on the adjacent farmland was the least intrusive option that balanced the needs of the residential landowners and the agricultural property.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed their assessments for the maintenance and repair of the Harrop Municipal Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that their lands did not benefit from the drain, and that the Hagersville Wastewater Treatment Plant should bear 100% of the maintenance costs.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's engineer, who used the Todgham Method and LiDAR data to determine the drainage area and outlet liability.

The Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate the appellants' claims or to support an alternate assessment methodology.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Appellant appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the Hewitt's Creek Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that the benefits were not commensurate with costs, the works should be modified, and his allowance was inadequate.

At the hearing, the Appellant requested an adjournment, which was denied due to ample prior time and failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The Appellant subsequently refused to present any evidence or be sworn in.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence of the Engineer, the Tribunal found the benefits commensurate with costs, declined to modify the works, and found the allowance reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals under s. 48(1) and s. 54(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements to the drain were being undertaken pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act, which does not require a petition from landowners.

The Tribunal concluded that the s. 48(1) appeal did not meet the statutory criteria and dismissed both appeals without a hearing, granting the appellants participant status instead.

The appellants appealed under section 58(5) of the Drainage Act, alleging that the respondent municipality failed to proceed with reasonable dispatch with the construction of the Zettler Municipal Drain after passing the provisional by-law.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's engineer had submitted the report and the municipality had tendered the project prematurely, before obtaining necessary environmental permits from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to apply for the required permits without delay and to amend the engineer's report if required by the conservation authority.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of two appellants regarding the Tate Drain.

After the appeal of those appellants was dismissed, the Tribunal reviewed the Minutes of Settlement signed by the remaining parties.

Finding the settlement proper under section 51 of the Drainage Act, the Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement and ordered the Township to amend the provisional by-law accordingly.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of Ken and Robert J. Jones regarding the Tate Drain.

The appellants failed to attend several pre-hearing conferences and the peremptory motion hearing, and did not file responding materials.

The Tribunal found the appeal seemingly abandoned and dismissed it as frivolous under Rules 33.01 and 33.06 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the Frenchman's Creek Drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the proposed drainage works were unnecessary and that flooding was solely caused by a nearby quarry discharging water in excess of its permit.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 54(1) appeal as the appellant provided no evidence challenging the assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the section 48(1) appeal, finding the proposed works were required, the quarry had a legal right to discharge under its permit, and the drain required improvement.

The Appellants sought to appeal a drainage assessment to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Appellants had attended the Court of Revision and made oral submissions but had not filed a written appeal within the required timeframe, despite being advised of the option to file a late appeal.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the Appellants did not file an appeal with the Court of Revision, they were not parties to an appeal before it.

Consequently, under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellants appealed their assessments for the construction and future maintenance costs of the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain Phase 1 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments should be reduced or eliminated due to lack of benefit and alleged negligence by the municipality in managing drainage infrastructure.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the properties did benefit from the drainage works and that the assessments were fairly and reasonably calculated using the Todgham method.

The appellants appealed the assessments made in an Engineer's Report for the reconstruction of the Galbraith Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their property would not benefit from the proposed drain and that the watershed boundary had changed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the engineer who prepared the report, finding that the appellants would benefit from the removal of an open ditch and reduced surface water.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were fair and reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The Appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the proposed Noah Martin Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing a lack of procedural fairness, requesting the drain be relocated off his property, seeking explicit permission for future underdrainage connections, and claiming insufficient allowances.

The Tribunal found that statutory consultation processes were followed and accepted the engineer's proposed route.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised to explicitly state the drain has capacity for the Appellant's future underdrainage and increased the section 30 allowance for damages by $1,000 to account for additional fence crossings.

The appellant appealed the assessments in the Engineer's Report for the Paauw Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The parties reached a resolution and sought a consent order from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered corrections to the Engineer's Report and revised assessments for the appellant's property, setting aside the Court of Revision decision regarding the property.