Stewart Hart

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for a municipal drain, arguing that the drain should not cross his property and that his assessment was too high.

The Tribunal found that there was no practical alternative to routing the drain through the appellant's property.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's assessment methodology, finding it reasonable despite being unusual, though it ordered a minor correction to the assessment schedule.

The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay a portion of the hearing costs due to his failure to participate in earlier stages of the process.

The appellant dairy farmer appealed a decision of the Director not to cancel a freezing point test result and associated $900 penalty for a milk sample taken in December 1997.

The appellant did not dispute the test results but argued the Director failed to provide earlier warning data that would have allowed him to correct his bulk tank cooling procedures and avoid the penalty.

The Tribunal denied the appeal, finding no error in the testing procedures and noting the appellant was treated in the same manner as other producers penalized for the same offense.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessment for the McFeeters Drainage Works.

The Court of Revision had reduced the benefit assessment on a downstream property and transferred the amount to the appellant's assessment.

The Tribunal found that the original assessments proposed by the engineer were appropriate and that the Court of Revision's adjustment resulted in an assessment that was too high for the appellant and too low for the downstream property.

The appeal was granted, and the original engineer's assessments were restored.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report for the May Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the drain was unnecessary and that they should not be assessed for it, while the owners of the May property supported the drain but contested their assessment.

The Tribunal found that the project should proceed as recommended, as the engineer had properly considered alternatives and the appellants provided no evidence to contradict the project's benefits.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the benefit assessments, increasing the assessments for several properties and decreasing the assessment for the May property, while adding a special benefit assessment to the May property for excessive consultation costs.

Several landowners and the Township of Springwater appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Stone/Ververs Municipal Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the benefit assessment for one landowner, G. Ververs, to zero, redistributing it to others.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found the Engineer's original assessments were properly calculated and restored them.

The Tribunal also increased the allowance granted to Ververs for crop damage from $300 to $600, assessing the increase proportionally against the main drain watershed.