Russell Piper

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 church appealed the municipality's decision not to accept its petition for drainage under section 5 of the Drainage Act.

The church had experienced severe flooding and initially sought a mutual agreement drain, which the municipality agreed to in principle but refused to fund.

The church subsequently filed a petition for drainage under section 4 of the Act, which the municipality rejected.

The Tribunal found that the municipality was within its right to reject the petition, but the church was also within its right to appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to proceed with the petition, finding that the failure to reach a mutual agreement did not preclude the consideration of a petition.

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

The appellant sought modifications to the drainage works, including retaining a catchbasin, installing a larger tile, and allowing a proposed grassed waterway to be cropped.

The Tribunal ordered the report amended to retain the catchbasin and install the larger tile at the appellant's expense, as agreed or requested.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to crop the waterway, finding that a permanently grassed waterway was necessary to control erosion.

The appeal regarding the assessments was dismissed, subject to adjustments for the ordered modifications.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Cook Leddy Municipal Drain 2003.

The dispute centered on the location of the drain outlet and the resulting assessments.

The Tribunal found that the existing outlet was insufficient and approved the engineer's recommendation to extend the drain to by-pass a pond on the Leddy property.

The Tribunal varied the assessments, allocating a special benefit assessment to the Leddy property due to the increased costs of routing the drain past the pond, and prorating the remaining costs among the upstream owners.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report regarding the Hanna Municipal Drain, arguing against the proposed working space for maintenance on his property and suggesting alternative routes.

The Tribunal found the engineer's proposed design and route to be the only suitable one, but ordered the drain to follow a more southerly route across the appellant's property to minimize future development issues.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's calculations for the property allowance and ordered specific dimensions for the working space.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the revised engineer's report regarding the Klijn Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the proposed drainage works did not drain the total watershed and objected to special benefit assessments for engineering work on a proposed extension.

The Tribunal found that the drainage works described in the report were appropriate and that the engineer could not extend the drain upstream without a valid petition.

The Tribunal also upheld the assessments, finding them equitable and justified, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report on the Smith Drain Extension under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The report proposed constructing two storm water management structures (Alternative 1) to address erosion on the appellants' property.

The appellants preferred Alternative 3, which included a fenced detention pond and a closed drain.

The Tribunal found that Alternative 3 was the optimal long-term solution, as Alternative 1 would only relocate the erosion problem.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to redesign the drainage works incorporating Alternative 3.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Paradise Road Drain under the Drainage Act, seeking a change in the drain's location and increased compensation.

During the hearing, the appellants and the respondent municipality reached a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised in accordance with the settlement, which relocated the drain, reduced the appellants' assessment to zero, and increased their right-of-way allowance.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Klijn Municipal Drain.

The engineer had proposed a Northern route for a closed tile drain, which was more expensive but preferred by neighbouring landowners to avoid crossing their properties.

The appellant argued for a Western route following the natural flow of water or an open ditch.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Western route was cheaper, followed the natural water flow, and would service the entire watershed.

The Tribunal directed the municipality to refer the report back to the engineer to design the drain along the Western route and give downstream owners the option of an open or closed drain.

The appellant requested an adjournment of the hearing sine die because he elected to file appeals from previous Tribunal decisions to the Referee, and intended to bring an application to the Referee for a declaration that the proposed drainage work does not comply with the Drainage Act.

The respondent and other represented parties opposed the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the application to adjourn, noting its obligation to deal with matters fairly and expeditiously in the absence of a valid order of prohibition.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed Louks Drain in the Township of Norfolk.

The appellants argued that the drain was unnecessary, the route should be modified, and their assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to halt the construction or alter the proposed route, noting the project was driven by the need to provide drainage to residential lots.

However, the Tribunal made minor adjustments to the statutory benefit and outlet liability assessments for specific properties to better reflect the actual benefits received.

The appeals under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act were otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a municipal drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant raised concerns regarding a gabion structure placed on its property, potential liability, and the improper disposal of excavated spoil which created a berm and caused ponding.

The Tribunal found the gabion structure was constructed adequately and in accordance with the engineer's report, and declined to order fencing at the drain's expense.

However, the Tribunal found the spoil was not adequately spread and ordered the engineer to consult with the landowner to level the material and construct swales to prevent ponding.

The appellant brought a preliminary motion seeking an adjournment, an examination for discovery of the municipal engineer, and the right for their own engineer to inspect the land.

The Tribunal denied the request for an examination for discovery, noting such orders are only for extraordinary circumstances.

However, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered the municipal engineer to produce specific documents, including field notes and calculations, to ensure fairness without overcomplicating the quasi-judicial process.

Three landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Cook-Leddy Municipal Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the necessity of the drain, the location of the outlet, potential pollution of a farm pond, and the apportionment of assessments.

The Tribunal found that the drain was necessary to address excess water and provide a legal outlet.

It declined to relocate the outlet downstream of the pond due to the substantial additional costs that would result.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the drain's construction and outlet location, but set aside the Court of Revision's decision and adjusted the assessments for two of the properties.

Property owners appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision concerning improvements to a municipal drain.

The municipality initiated the report to enclose a fragile section of the open drain and update assessment schedules.

Appellants challenged the necessity of the works and the engineer's apportionment of costs, specifically a $200 special benefit assessment levied on 38 nearby properties.

The Tribunal approved the proposed works, finding them necessary to prevent potential collapse and flooding.

However, the Tribunal found the $200 special levy unjustified, ordering its deletion and reallocating the costs by increasing the assessments on the four properties immediately abutting the works and adding a nominal levy to all parcels in the watershed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the Ripley Drain.

They had initially requested that an open ditch on their property be filled in with lawn tile, but objected to the $20,000 special benefit assessment and the routing of additional surface water across their property.

They requested that the surface water be diverted or the ditch relocated to the road allowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the engineer's report appropriately addressed the drainage problems of upstream owners and that the appellants must bear the cost if they choose to enclose the ditch on their property.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Cook's Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found that the engineer's report did not adequately address the drainage needs of all affected properties and that the apportionment of statutory benefit and outlet liability assessments required reconsideration.

The Tribunal ordered the report to be referred back to the engineer for further consideration and revision.

In a subsequent reconsideration decision, the Tribunal amended the deadlines for the municipality to consider the revised report due to upcoming municipal elections.

Costs of $250 were awarded against two appellants who failed to appear or abandon their appeal.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the proposed Harmony Road Drain in the Township of Delhi.

The appellants argued that the drain would not benefit their lands and that the costs were not commensurate with the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drainage works would provide a necessary outlet for upstream lands and that the overall advantages to the watershed outweighed the costs.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's assessments as fair and reasonable, dismissing all appeals.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Loach Municipal Drain, arguing that the drain should be relocated and their assessment reduced.

The Tribunal found that the proposed location of the drain was appropriate and dismissed the appeal regarding the location.

However, the Tribunal amended the assessment schedule, determining that a ratio of approximately 75% benefit and 25% outlet was more appropriate than the 50:50 ratio set by the Court of Revision.

The City of Sarnia applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Bird Drain.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the Township had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application, permitting the City to appoint an engineer to vary the assessment.

No costs were ordered.