Marc Huneault

The appellants appealed the compensation and special benefit assessments under the Drainage Act regarding a proposed municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that the compensation for insufficient outlet was inadequate because the engineer calculated the corridor length based on an arbitrary termination point rather than the actual distance to a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal increased the compensation from $5,690 to $9,653.

The Tribunal also found that the $5,510 special benefit assessment against the appellants for additional engineering investigations was unjust, as the onus is on the upper lands to justify an insufficient outlet.

Both appeals were granted.

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.

L’Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal to continue receiving special funding under the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions and supporting affidavit, noting no objections were received.

Finding that the applicant fulfilled the statutory criteria, the Tribunal granted the application and ordered special funding to continue for a five-year period expiring on September 1, 2030.

The appellant appealed the benefit assessment for the Cobb's Lake Creek Municipal Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to remove the benefit assessment for the appellant's property and redistribute the costs to other properties in Section 5 of the drain.

The Tribunal approved the settlement agreement under section 51(1) of the Drainage Act and ordered the respondent municipality to amend the Provisional By-Law to incorporate the settlement terms before giving it third reading.

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.

Two appeals were brought regarding the Port Colborne Municipal Drain.

Port Colborne Quarries Inc. appealed under Section 54 of the Drainage Act, seeking to reduce the runoff coefficients used for their assessment, which had been increased by the Court of Revision.

Jack Hellinga appealed under Section 48, arguing his lands were improperly assessed for upstream work.

The Tribunal dismissed Hellinga's appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under Section 48 to hear an appeal regarding assessments.

The Tribunal allowed the quarry's appeal, relying on expert engineering evidence to restore the lower runoff coefficients originally proposed in the engineer's report.

The appellants appealed their municipal drain assessments under section 54 of the Drainage Act, seeking reductions in their outlet liability and benefit assessments.

They argued that a lower runoff factor should have been applied to their property, which is a provincially significant wetland, and that they received no benefit from the drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the outlet liability appeals because the appellants failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the $1,000 benefit assessment, reducing it to zero, as the property would not increase in value or be more easily maintained as a result of the works.

The appellants appealed the assessments in the Engineer's Report for the Highway 6 Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

Two of the appellants withdrew their appeals at the hearing.

The remaining appellants and the respondent municipality reached a consent agreement to reduce the outlet liability assessment for the appellants' property and correspondingly increase the benefit assessment for the municipal wastewater treatment plant.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report amended in accordance with the consent agreement.