Lee Holling

The appellants appealed the municipality's decision to deny their petition for drainage works under section 4(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants experienced significant surface and subsurface water flow from a neighbouring property, causing damage to their foundation.

The municipality argued the issue could be resolved without a petition and raised concerns about the threshold requirements.

The Tribunal found the appellants established a valid drainage issue warranting investigation and ordered the municipality to accept the petition and appoint an engineer to determine if the statutory thresholds are met.

The applicant, a farmer, applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a religious exemption from registering his farm and making a mandatory payment to a farm organization.

The Tribunal applied a three-pronged test derived from labour relations case law to determine if the objection was based on genuinely held religious beliefs.

While finding the applicant's beliefs were genuinely held, the Tribunal concluded they were primarily philosophical rather than religious, and that the actual cause of the application was to avoid the administrative burden of requesting an annual refund.

The application was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and allowances in the Engineer's Report for the South Innisfil Creek Drain Improvement under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that the municipality should bear more costs due to past lack of maintenance, and that the drain improvements would not benefit them until downstream culverts were replaced.

A golf course owner appealed the allowance for loss of access, arguing it should cover four bridges instead of one.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals, finding the engineer's allocations fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal allowed the golf course's appeal in part, increasing the allowance for one bridge from $41,600 to $137,500 based on expert evidence, while agreeing that only one bridge should be funded by the drain.

The applicant municipality sought an extension of time under section 100 of the Drainage Act to apply for a review of an engineer's account under section 72.

The account had been paid in 2016, but a 2017 Tribunal decision heavily criticized the engineer's report.

The municipality delayed until December 2018 to seek the extension.

The Tribunal denied the extension, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay between the 2017 decision and the 2018 application, and concluding that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent engineer.

The applicant applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for re-accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence submitted by the applicant, including its incorporation, democratic election processes, membership numbers, financial statements, and support for local branches.

Finding that the applicant met all statutory and regulatory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered the applicant re-accredited for a period of three years.

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the applicant met all prescribed criteria, including having a democratic board, representing a wide base of farming businesses, maintaining at least 250 supporter farming businesses, and providing education and advocacy.

The Tribunal granted the application and ordered the renewal of the applicant's accreditation for a three-year period.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for the renewal of its accreditation as a farm organization under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the uncontradicted evidence and determined that the OFA satisfied all prescribed criteria under Ontario Regulation 723/93, including membership numbers, democratic processes, financial reporting, and advocacy efforts.

The Tribunal ordered the renewal of the OFA's accreditation for a three-year period commencing December 6, 2018.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction, design, and assessment of the Darmar-Tamlin Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal reviewed several specific issues regarding the drain's branches, manholes, and ditch inlets.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert evidence of the project engineer, the Tribunal approved several field changes, including extending a branch drain to the appellant's property line and removing an orifice plate, but largely confirmed the original design and revised assessment schedules.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to the appellant, finding no bad faith or unreasonable conduct by the municipality.

The appellants appealed the decision of the reconvened Court of Revision regarding the amended assessment schedule for the repair and improvement of the Southwest Branch of the Shepley Drain.

The appellants argued that the watershed limits and resulting assessments on their property were incorrect.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methods and the resulting amended assessments to be technically sound and equitable, dismissing the appeal and confirming the amended assessments.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the Darmar-Tamlin Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

At the start of the hearing, both parties noted that the adopted report was missing several mandatory elements, including a watershed map, stamped drawings, cost estimates, and a maintenance schedule.

The Tribunal found that these omissions constituted a significant error that failed to comply with section 8 of the Act.

Relying on its broad powers under section 51(1), the Tribunal issued an interim order adjourning the hearing and referring the report back to the engineer with specific directions to revise it to include the omitted items.

The Tribunal also extended the appellant's time to appeal under sections 48 and 54 to cure any process defects.

Several landowners appealed an Engineer's Report proposing the enclosure of portions of the Switzer Drain and McLean Switzer Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drainage works were primarily designed to accommodate one landowner's request to close a drain, which would reduce the functionality and capacity of the municipal drain for upstream properties.

The Tribunal held that the Engineer failed to meet his duties under section 11 of the Drainage Act by proposing impractical and technically flawed works that did not adhere to the Drainage Guide for Ontario.

The Engineer's Report was set aside and the adopting by-law was ordered repealed.

The appellant appealed the assessment for the Miller Drain 2016 under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the assessment reduced or altered.

The appellant had requested that the open ditch crossing his property be enclosed.

The appointed engineer prepared a report recommending the enclosure of the drain on the appellant's property and assessed the costs accordingly.

The appellant argued the costs should be dealt with as in the past but provided no details on an acceptable assessment.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the assessments were fair and reasonable, noting the report reflected the appellant's request and a prior Tribunal order.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.