Tim Mousseau

The appellants appealed the proposed construction of an outlet structure for the Rose Beach Line Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

Following an interim decision requiring the Municipality to obtain an independent engineering report, the Municipality submitted a report from Landmark Engineers Inc. The Landmark Report identified significant shortcomings in the original Spriet Report's design, noting risks of damage from wave and ice forces and potential impacts on longshore sediment transport.

Given the substantial revisions required to address these issues, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the Spriet Report, and ordered the Municipality to bear its own engineering and legal costs.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Young and Hopf-Wagner Drains under the Drainage Act.

The appellants primarily challenged the adequacy of section 30 damage allowances for tree removal and the benefit assessments applied to their properties.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, increasing the damage allowance for one property and reducing the benefit assessment for another based on the Engineer's concessions.

The remaining appeals seeking higher compensation for tree removal were dismissed, as the Tribunal found the Engineer's allowances reasonable and noted the landowners retained the right to harvest the felled trees.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that the engineer erred in providing damage allowances for tree removal and disputed the watershed boundaries and runoff coefficients used to calculate assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence regarding the necessity of tree removal, the appropriateness of the allowances, and the accuracy of the topographical survey and runoff coefficients used for the assessments.

The appellant appealed a municipal engineer's report proposing a new drainage works under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the drain should be constructed on an alternative alignment or as a mutual agreement drain.

The appellant claimed the proposed works would negatively impact his property and proposed agricultural development.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the engineer's evidence that the proposed alignment was hydraulically efficient, necessary to alleviate surface ponding, and that the appellant's alternative was significantly more expensive and technically inferior.

The Tribunal affirmed the municipality's right to proceed via petition rather than mutual agreement.

The appellants appealed the assessments and the engineer's report for the Dingle Creek Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Three appellants argued their assessments were too high or disproportionate, while one appellant argued the drainage works were unnecessary and proposed an alternative design.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals, finding the calculations were reasonable and consistent.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the engineer's report, accepting uncontradicted expert evidence that the proposed bank stabilization was necessary to address ongoing erosion and that the appellant's alternative design was not viable.

Due to the egregious, aggressive, and disruptive conduct of one appellant's representative, who walked out of the hearing during cross-examination and made unsupported allegations, the Tribunal awarded costs of $12,500 to the municipality and $10,000 to the engineer.

Four landowners appealed the assessments and design of the Dingle Creek Municipal Drain under the Drainage Act.

Three appellants challenged their assessments, arguing they received no benefit or were assessed unfairly compared to neighbours.

The Tribunal dismissed these appeals, finding the assessments were calculated reasonably and consistently.

The fourth appellant challenged the design of the drainage works, proposing an alternative route.

The Tribunal dismissed this appeal based on uncontradicted expert evidence that the proposed alternative was not viable and would cause the creek to dry up.

Due to the fourth appellant's representative's unreasonable and disruptive conduct, including walking out of the hearing, the Tribunal awarded costs of $12,500 to the County and $10,000 to the Engineer.

The applicants brought a complaint under the Farm Implements Act regarding the alleged failure of the hydraulic system of a tractor purchased from the respondent.

At the commencement of the scheduled five-day hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that the matter had settled.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Rose Beach Line Drain Outlet Structure under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The report recommended constructing a steel sheet piling flume to address severe erosion at the drain's outlet on Lake Erie.

The appellants argued the project was too costly, unnecessary, and poorly designed for a coastal environment.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeals, finding the appellants failed to provide expert engineering evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal ordered the municipality to obtain a coastal engineer's review of the design and to secure all necessary agency approvals before proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered that the existing right of way be used for access and approved minor revisions to the assessment schedules.

The appellant appealed under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking the removal of 'Branch A' from the engineer's report for the proposed Hartman-Lindsay Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his existing private tile system was sufficient and proposed constructing an earth berm instead.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the private tile main was inadequately sized to accommodate surface and subsurface flows, and that Branch A was necessary to protect downgradient lands from surface water ponding.

The Tribunal ordered the provisional by-law amended to include a Hickenbottom inlet on Branch A.

The appellant moved to adjourn the hearing of an appeal under the Drainage Act on the grounds that four witnesses were out of the country and that a Constitutional Question was pending before the Superior Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant had not taken steps to summon the witnesses or provide evidence of their necessity, and that the Constitutional Question related to a distinct legal issue that did not operate as an automatic stay of the Tribunal proceedings.

The appellants, owners of three adjacent residential properties, appealed the City of Port Colborne's decision to refuse their petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The appellants experienced surface water drainage issues in their rear and side yards, which they attributed to a drainage swale and fencing on neighbouring properties.

The City's Drainage Superintendent testified that the issues stemmed from the flat grading of the appellants' properties and landscaping alterations, rather than a failure of the municipal drainage system.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants failed to provide expert evidence demonstrating that a drainage works project was viable or that their petition met the statutory thresholds required under Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant operated a meat processing business at a permanent location and sold products from a mobile trailer at farmers' markets and events.

The Ministry detained his meat products, alleging he operated an unlicensed meat plant.

The appellant appealed the Director's disposal order, claiming the 'food service exemption' under the Meat Regulation.

The Tribunal found that over 50% of the appellant's total business sales were meals or meal portions for immediate consumption, qualifying the business for the exemption.

The appeal was allowed and the Director's disposal order was revoked.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding the Pilkington Drain, the respondent Municipality sought full indemnity costs of $23,594.21, arguing the appeal was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found the appellants' conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.

The Tribunal declined to make a direct costs award against the appellants, instead ordering that the Municipality's costs form part of the cost of the drainage works to be assessed proportionately among all property owners on the drain, in accordance with standard practice under the Drainage Act.

The municipality sought costs following its successful defence of an appeal by a self-represented landowner regarding the quality of construction of a municipal drain.

The Tribunal found the appeal was devoid of merit, raised issues outside its jurisdiction, and attempted to re-litigate previously decided matters.

Concluding the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, the Tribunal awarded costs to the municipality.

The Tribunal reduced the requested full indemnity amount, fixing costs at $17,727.89 on a partial indemnity basis, and ordered the amount be added to the tax roll against the appellant's assessed lands.

The Appellants appealed a municipal drainage report (the Spriet Report) under s. 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have it set aside and replaced with their own private drainage works.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants' private works were undertaken without authorization and did not provide a benefit commensurate with the estimated costs to the watershed.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the municipality's drainage engineer over the Appellants' civil engineer, concluding that the Spriet Report provided a sufficient outlet and met design standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the Spriet Report was adopted.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of the Van Beets Municipal Drain under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant raised numerous issues, including constitutional, criminal, environmental, and common law claims, which the Tribunal found were outside its jurisdiction.

On the core issue of construction quality, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the drainage works deviated from the engineer's plans and specifications.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the drainage engineer that the works were constructed in accordance with the report, subject to minor, reasonable field alterations.

The appeal was dismissed.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Ouellette Drain East under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, the drain should flow west instead of east, the allowances provided were excessive, and their assessments should be reduced.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that the proposed easterly flow to the Marsh Creek Drain was a sufficient outlet, the allowances were properly calculated, and the assessments were appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the Report to reflect adjustments made at the Court of Revision.

The appellants appealed the assessments levied against their property in the Engineer's Report for the Bateman Municipal Drain, arguing that the watershed boundaries were incorrect, certain benefit assessments were unjustified, and specific design changes were needed.

They also claimed the Court of Revision refused to hear their appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Engineer's methodology for distributing costs was fair and equitable, and that design changes must be appealed under section 48, not section 54.

The Tribunal also found the Court of Revision acted correctly in refusing to hear design matters.

The Municipality's request for costs was denied as the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious.

Several residential property owners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Sinclair Drain/Virostek Drain 2014 under the Drainage Act, challenging the necessity of the works, the proposed design, and the assessments levied against them.

The appellants argued they should not have to pay for drainage improvements that primarily benefit adjacent agricultural lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed covered drain was the most cost-effective and technically sound solution.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the residential development had obstructed natural surface water flows, and upheld the assessments as fairly distributed using the modified Todgham Method.

A farmer appealed the assessment of costs for an environmental impact study required by the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (CA) for a proposed municipal drain.

The CA argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over it.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the CA because the CA acted under its own parallel regulatory regime, despite ignoring the Drainage Act processes.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Municipality to bear the full $49,944 cost of the study because it failed to properly manage the Drainage Act process and protect the farmer from unexpected costs.