Ron Gelderland

The appellants, owners of agricultural land, petitioned the municipality for improved drainage.

The municipality appointed an engineer who prepared a report recommending a new drain.

The municipality's council refused to adopt the report, citing concerns about costs and setting a precedent for draining farmers' fields.

The appellants appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding a definite need for drainage and rejecting the municipality's rationale as lacking legal foundation.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to adopt the engineer's report and to pay the engineer's costs for attending the hearing.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Elliot Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the allowance for incorporating an existing tile drain was incorrectly split between him and his brother, and that he should receive the full allowance as the current owner of the land where the drain is located.

The Tribunal agreed that the allowance under section 31 of the Act must be assigned to the current owner of the property, not the descendant of a previous owner.

The Tribunal also found the allowance excessive and reduced it from $2,000 to $1,000.

The cost estimate and schedule of assessments were revised accordingly.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and assessments for the proposed Eden Grove Municipal Drain.

The petitioners sought drainage of their flooded agricultural lands, while other landowners and the conservation authority raised concerns about downstream impacts, wetland preservation, and the project's feasibility.

The Tribunal found that the engineer lacked sufficient drainage expertise, the report was deficient and lacked adequate survey data, and the proposed works would not provide measurable relief or reclaim land for agriculture due to conservation restrictions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, rejected the engineer's report, and ordered the municipality to terminate the drainage project.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Dean Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant sought numerous modifications to the design of the proposed drainage works, including a higher drainage coefficient, the use of concrete tile instead of plastic, and specific measures to protect trees on his property.

He also challenged the delineation of the watershed and the resulting assessments.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's assessments and the core design of the drainage works, finding the proposed ¾ inch in 24 hour drainage coefficient adequate.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appellant the option to pay the extra costs for concrete tile and a higher drainage coefficient if he so chose.

The Tribunal also ordered minor design modifications, including a swinging rodent grate, specific catchbasin grates, and a 3-metre grass buffer strip.

Finally, the Tribunal increased the allowance to the appellant for anticipated damage to eight hard maple trees on his property.

The appellants appealed a Court of Revision decision that removed assessments against lands in the Kilbride Pumping Works for the repair and improvement of the Dykeman Pumping Works.

The Tribunal found that the Dykeman Pumping Works is an integrated system that provides drainage and flood protection to the entire watershed, including the Kilbride lands.

The Tribunal granted the appeal under section 54 of the Drainage Act, reinstating the assessments as scheduled in the engineer's report, and dismissed the appeal under section 48(1)(b).

The appellant appealed an engineer's report and a decision of the Court of Revision regarding a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

During the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment to resolve a boundary dispute under the Boundaries Act, arguing that the boundary line used by the engineer was incorrect and affected the allowances provided.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that while it lacked jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes, the resolution of the boundary was relevant to determining the appropriate allowances.

The appellant was ordered to provide proof of initiating a proceeding under the Boundaries Act.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the apportionment of assessments for the Gauthier Municipal Drain.

The Court of Revision had increased the benefit liability from 40 percent to 70 percent for certain properties, shifting more costs to the appellant.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the benefit to the affected properties was not significant enough to warrant the Court of Revision's increase.

The Tribunal ordered the apportionment of assessments to be adjusted to 40 percent outlet and 60 percent benefit, reflecting a reasonable ratio proportionate to the respective improvements.

The appellant, a tobacco grower, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption to rent out 100% of his 2005 marketing quota.

The appellant argued that deteriorating eyesight prevented him from growing a crop.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's medical condition was not a sudden or unexpected deterioration that prevented him from arranging for a sharegrower to grow the crop.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report regarding the Gardiner Drain Extension 2004, arguing that the allowances for buffer strips were excessive and that the natural watercourse should not be altered due to environmental concerns.

The Tribunal found that the proposed works were necessary to provide a mechanism for future maintenance and that the allowances for buffer strips were appropriate for the protection of the drainage channel and fish habitat.

The appeal was dismissed and the engineer's report was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Agricorp concerning the adjustment of his claim for his 2004 cucumber crop under the Crop Insurance Act.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and signed a release.

As there were no outstanding issues to resolve, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a tobacco farmer, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from its regulations to rent out 100% of his 2005 marketing quota.

The appellant argued that his recovery from back surgery constituted an extraordinary circumstance preventing him from growing a crop or finding a sharegrower.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's health condition was foreseeable and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance, and that he had not made adequate efforts to obtain a sharegrower.

The appellants appealed an amended engineer's report under the Drainage Act that proposed an open ditch drainage system instead of the initially proposed covered tile drain.

The appellants argued the open ditch would be less efficient and harder to maintain.

The Tribunal found that the open ditch design, located entirely on the neighbouring property, would adequately remove surface water flows and address the appellants' concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the municipality to adopt the amended report.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision which had reduced the drainage assessments of several upstream landowners to zero and added those amounts to the appellant's assessment.

The Tribunal found that the Court of Revision failed to recognize that landowners within a drainage watershed are responsible for outlet liability under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal rescinded the Court of Revision's decision and confirmed the original assessments calculated in the engineer's report.