Judy Clark

The appellants appealed the benefit and outlet assessments levied against their lands for the Fuller Drain Extension.

The drainage works were initiated by a petition from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) after highway reconstruction destroyed the existing private drain outlet, causing ponding.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the works was to provide an outlet for highway waters and that the MTO should bear a larger share of the costs.

The Tribunal ordered reductions in the assessments against the appellants' lands and increased the assessment against the MTO.

The Tribunal also struck out the separate schedule for future maintenance, ordering that maintenance be assessed on the same basis as construction.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the repair and improvement of the Zaburney Drain.

The appellants objected to the provision of a 10-foot grass buffer strip on both sides of the drain, the casting of excavated spoil on their lands, and their assessment for the works.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal held that the Engineer had jurisdiction to take lands for a buffer strip and to direct the disposal of spoil.

However, the Tribunal found no justification for a mandatory buffer strip on the south side of the drain, where no surface waters entered, and ordered the buffer strip provisions deleted from the Report.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's method of alternating spoil disposal and confirmed the assessments as equitable.

The appeal was allowed in part to remove the buffer strip requirement, but dismissed on all other grounds.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report regarding the repair and improvement of the Mills Drain.

The proceeding was initiated by the Township of Dover following a notice of repair from an owner in the Township of Chatham.

The Engineer surveyed and recommended work on the entire drain, including portions in Chatham, without specific instructions or a proper petition.

The Tribunal found irregularities in the process and held that the upstream work in Chatham should remain in the Report but not proceed until requested by an assessed owner or recommended by the Chatham Drainage Superintendent.

The downstream work was ordered to proceed.

The assessment appeal of Phyllis Brodie was dismissed.

The Engineer's account was approved, but he was denied compensation for attending the hearing or amending the Report due to his role in the procedural irregularities.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the McBrayne Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant sought to have his benefit assessment removed and to have other landowners assessed for cutoff benefit and the cost of an access culvert.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the appellant's benefit assessment and the cutoff benefit for other landowners, finding the engineer's methodology sound.

However, the Tribunal varied the report to assess two other landowners for a portion of the cost of an access culvert that primarily benefited their lands, reducing the special benefit assessment against the municipality.

The Tribunal also awarded costs against the appellant, characterizing his appeal as bordering on vexatious given his long history of pursuing the municipality for an outlet for his subsurface drainage system.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the repair of washouts in the Abray Drain.

The Report assessed the majority of the erosion control costs against upstream landowners, theorizing the damage was caused by water flowing in the drain.

The Tribunal found that the physical evidence overwhelmingly indicated the washouts were caused by surface waters flowing from the adjoining landowner's property into the drain.

Consequently, the Tribunal varied the assessment, ordering that the costs of the erosion control work be levied primarily against the adjoining landowner.

The appellant appealed his assessment for drainage works on the Ruscom River, arguing that his assessment should be reduced because the project was scaled down and that upstream owners should not pay for downstream private farm crossings.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessment method was equitable and that upstream owners are properly assessed for the replacement of downstream crossings destroyed during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered an amendment to the engineer's report to replace a costly cast-in-place concrete bridge with a precast concrete box low-flow crossing, as agreed by the municipality and the affected owner.