Maurice Armstrong

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Highway No. 7 Drainage Works in the Township of Woolwich.

The appellants challenged the proposed modifications to the drain, the adequacy of allowances for land taken and crop damage, and the benefit and outlet liability assessments.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the drain modifications and allowances, finding the Engineer's design appropriate and the allowances generous.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the benefit assessments, increasing the amounts levied against Highway No. 7, Regional Road No. 30, and Waterloo Flowers, as the drainage works were primarily constructed to provide outlets for them.

The Tribunal also ruled that the costs for enhancing or preserving fish habitat could not be assessed against the affected lands under the Drainage Act, as such works do not fall within the definition of drainage works.

One panel member dissented on the fish habitat issue.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a storm sewer and pumping system for a residential area along Lake Erie.

The appellant argued the project was premature, too costly, and could create a health hazard by impounding polluted waters.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the drainage system was carefully designed, necessary to solve existing flooding and road maintenance problems, and that there was no expert evidence to justify modifying the proposed system.

The appellant ski club appealed an outlet liability assessment for proposed drainage works on the Ford Outlet Drain.

The Engineer had assessed the appellant's lands, despite them being riparian, on the assumption that the appellant's snow-making operations constituted an unreasonable use of the natural watercourse.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not make snow within the watershed and did not discharge snow-melt into the natural watercourse.

Consequently, the appellant was not making an unreasonable use of the watercourse, and its outlet liability assessment was reduced to zero.

The resulting shortfall was reapportioned as benefit assessments against other properties and roads, including Highway No. 26, which the Tribunal found was the primary beneficiary of the proposed culvert replacement.

The appellant ski resort appealed an outlet liability assessment for a proposed drainage works.

The appellant argued that as a riparian owner, its lands should not be assessed.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's use of the natural watercourse for snow-making was not unreasonable, the appellant was importing foreign water from outside the watershed.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's lands were liable for outlet assessment only for the foreign waters discharged into the natural watercourse.

The assessment was reduced from $23,040 to $6,000, with the balance levied against the Ministry of Transportation.

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 appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessments for a proposed drainage works.

The Engineer had initially assessed all eight properties equally for benefit, but the Court of Revision reduced the assessments for two smaller properties and redistributed the cost.

The Tribunal found that while the Engineer's premise of equal benefit for rear yard catchbasins was logical, adjustments were necessary for the common elements.

The Tribunal set the benefit assessment for the two smaller properties at $1,200 each and distributed the reduction equally among the other six properties.

The Tribunal also ordered that the private catchbasins be maintained by the property owners, not as part of the drainage works.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the construction of the Gill Road Municipal Drain, arguing that the assessments levied against their residential properties were inequitable and that they were misled about the availability of government grants.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the drainage works was to upgrade Gill Road to service a new residential development.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the benefit assessment against Gill Road to be increased to $70,000, with the corresponding reduction applied to the residential properties.

The Tribunal also reduced one appellant's outlet liability assessment to zero, finding no justification for it, but otherwise upheld the engineer's assessments for agricultural and institutional lands.

The appellants appealed their assessment for the repair and improvement of the Gordon Smith Drain.

Their lands, located outside the drain's watershed, experienced flooding due to backup flows from the Ruscom River overtopping the drain's banks.

The engineer had assessed them a Cutoff Benefit for the proposed control structure.

The Tribunal held that the duty to provide a sufficient outlet rests entirely on the assessed owners within the watershed.

Since the flooding was caused by an insufficient outlet, the costs to remedy it must be borne by the watershed owners.

The appeal was allowed and the appellants' assessments were reduced to zero.