Vernon Spencer

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

They argued the report was incomplete, the benefits were not commensurate with the costs, and their individual assessments were excessive.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 48 appeal, finding the report complete and the benefits commensurate with the costs.

The Tribunal partially granted the section 54 appeal, ordering modifications to the assessment schedules to properly account for special benefits and to remove certain prior consulting and carrying charges from the project's estimated costs.

Costs of $750 were awarded against two of the appellants for bringing a frivolous appeal.

Appellants appealed the engineer's report for the Foreman Municipal Drain Improvement under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal granted the appeal regarding the assessment of costs for Green Lane Environmental, finding the original outlet and benefit assessments unfair, and ordered modifications to the working width on their property.

The Tribunal dismissed appeals seeking to divert the drain out of the watershed and to increase the allowance for land used, finding the proposed alignment and agricultural land valuation appropriate.

The Tribunal also directed modifications to relocate a portion of the drain on another property and ordered the municipality to pay the actual increased costs resulting from the presence of a municipal road.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Walker Drain, Branch 'B' in the Township of West Elgin.

The appellants argued that the anticipated benefits of the proposed drainage works were not commensurate with the estimated costs and challenged their respective assessments.

The Tribunal found that the project was necessary to address flooding issues and that the administrative costs, while high, were largely due to the ratepayers' own requests for meetings and revisions.

The Tribunal confirmed the engineer's assessments, finding them appropriate given the natural drainage patterns and the benefits provided by the new drain.

The appeals were dismissed.

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 Township of Middlesex Centre applied to the Tribunal for a modification to By-Law No. 98-074 concerning the Taylor Drainage Works.

Three landowners requested additional work affecting only their properties and agreed to pay the total cost.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to terms including notice to affected parties and a 14-day appeal period.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the South Hutchinson Municipal Drain.

The engineer's report proposed cleaning out and extending the drain, with assessments divided between benefit and outlet.

The appellants argued their benefit assessment was disproportionately high compared to upstream landowners.

The Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the main drain was to provide an outlet for the entire watershed rather than direct benefit to abutting landowners.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer to prepare a new schedule of assessment using a ratio of 40% benefit and 60% outlet for channel maintenance.

The Township of Tilbury North applied to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal to modify By-law No. 36-97 concerning the Brissette Drain and Pump.

During construction, several changes were made to the drainage system, including enclosing a portion of the open drain, modifying the forcemain, and relocating a sewer, resulting in a 32% cost increase.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under sections 51 and 58 of the Drainage Act, subject to the Township notifying affected landowners and allowing a 14-day appeal period.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the repair and improvement of a municipal drain.

They sought compensation for past drain repairs, increased crop damage allowances, and changes to the cost assessments.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to address the 1982 repair issues and upheld the engineer's cost assessments as fair.

However, the Tribunal increased the crop damage allowance to $600 per acre, finding the engineer's use of input costs rather than crop value to be unusual.

The Tribunal also ordered the municipality to bear the hearing costs because it had reneged on a prior settlement agreement that could have avoided the hearing.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent applied to the Tribunal for a modification to a by-law concerning the repair and improvement of a drain and culvert.

After the original report was adopted, the property was severed, making the planned culvert location unsuitable for agricultural access.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to terms including notice to landowners and a 14-day appeal period.

Several ratepayers appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the proposed Scotchmer Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works primarily benefited only two properties and that the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that the existing drainage facilities were failing, causing erosion and flooding, and that the proposed project was necessary and cost beneficial.

The Tribunal also concluded that the assessments were appropriate, as the project provided a legal outlet for drainage water from all assessed properties.

The appeals were dismissed, and the engineer's report was confirmed with minor modifications.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the assessments in an engineer's report for the Cranberry Lake Drain.

The Tribunal found that the main purpose of the proposed work was to provide an outlet for upstream lands rather than direct benefit to adjacent lands.

The Tribunal concluded that the benefit-to-outlet ratio should be adjusted to 40% benefit and 60% outlet to ensure equitable treatment of similarly situated properties.

The report was referred back to the engineer for reconsideration of the assessments in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the reconstruction and reassessment of a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the existing drain was sufficient for their needs and that the cost of the proposed upgrade was not commensurate with the benefits.

The respondent municipality, supported by the engineer and another landowner experiencing ponding and crop loss, argued the upgrade was necessary to meet current design standards.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the project had merit and that the appellants failed to provide concrete evidence to justify abandoning the work or altering the assessments.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for the Jermyn Municipal Drain, requesting that all assessments for benefit and outlet be removed from her property and that no drain be installed.

The appellant argued that a portion of her land would never be cleared for agricultural purposes and should not be assessed for benefit.

The Tribunal found that the property would receive a benefit from the drain as it provides positive control of water flow and potential for increased productive land.

The Tribunal concluded that the engineer used proper methodology and the appellant was treated fairly in relation to other landowners.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Keenan Municipal Drain, arguing that he received no benefit from the drain, that the allowances for right-of-way and potential damages were inadequate, and that he wished to preserve his property as a wetland.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding assessments and allowances, finding them fair and reasonable, and noted that the appellant's property would benefit from better conducting of surface water.

However, based on an agreement reached between the parties, the Tribunal ordered a modification to the drain's grade profile to decrease the depth of excavation on the appellant's land.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and assessments regarding the Foster Drain 1997 and Addendum No. 1 under the Drainage Act.

They argued that their benefit assessments were too high and that an outlet pipe on Joseph Stephenson's property was unnecessary.

The Tribunal found that the division of benefit and outlet was weighted too heavily in benefit for the appellants, reducing Joseph Stephenson's benefit assessment from $9,600 to $7,600 and Jim and Mary Stephenson's from $3,000 to $2,000.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the outlet pipe, confirming its construction was in accordance with accepted practices.

Appeals were filed under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report for the Lewis Municipal Drain and the Maple Avenue South Municipal Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the proposed assessments, the location of the drain, and the potential impact on a fish farm.

During the hearing, alternative routes and designs were proposed, including a late report from a consultant that had not been disclosed to all parties.

The Tribunal declined to redesign the project or accept the late report without proper notice to affected landowners.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer for reconsideration and awarded costs against the appellant who filed the late report for wasting a hearing day.

The Township of Adelaide applied to the Tribunal to modify a municipal by-law concerning the Sutherland Drain, based on a revised engineer's report requested by a ratepayer.

The proposed modification involved repairing the drain and stabilizing the banks in their present location rather than moving the drain bank.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments to the by-law on terms, directing the engineer to amend the plan and profile and the Township to notify affected owners.

Several ratepayers appealed the engineer's report on the Indian Creek Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act, seeking modifications to the proposed drainage works to prevent flooding on their properties.

The appellants proposed enlarging outlets, creating additional high flow outlets, and rerouting portions of the drain.

The Tribunal reviewed the engineering evidence, which indicated that the proposed works were sufficient and that the requested modifications were either unnecessary or not cost-effective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no justification to modify the engineer's report.

The Township of North Dorchester applied to the Tribunal under s. 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend By-law 10-97 to reflect the as-constructed Finch Drain Branch 'A'.

During construction, it was discovered that the new tile drain needed to be longer than estimated, increasing the cost.

The engineer prepared an addendum report, which was circulated without objection.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments on terms, ordering the engineer to modify the addendum report and plan, and the Township to modify and circulate the by-law.

The Corporation of the Township of Gosfield North applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Irwin Drain.

The Township of Mersea, the other affected municipality, had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application.