Warren Jenner

The appellants appealed an engineer's report concerning the relocation and repair of the Harkness Drain, arguing that the allowances for damages and tree removal were insufficient and that the drain should not be moved off the road allowance.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to relocate the drain to accommodate road improvements but found that the Road Authority was not assessed enough for the benefit it received.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be amended to increase the special benefit assessment to the Township, increase the allowances for right-of-way and damages for the appellants, modify the piping requirements, and recalculate the allowances for tree removal.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment of costs for a report on future maintenance of the Zoller Drain and Zoller Drain Extension.

The report's costs were largely driven by the need to convert block assessments to individual lot assessments following the amalgamation of the Village of West Lorne and the Township of Aldborough.

The Tribunal found the engineer's equal per-property assessment method unfair to small non-agricultural lots.

The Tribunal ordered the costs to be reapportioned: a fixed amount to the former Township, a small per-lot fee to the former Village, and the balance to the amalgamated Municipality's roads and streets, reflecting the costs of amalgamation.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessments for the Lamb Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued that its assessment for a new branch of the drain should be reduced because it did not intend to connect its tile drainage system to it, and requested the elimination of another branch.

The Tribunal found that it lacked authority to consider the request to eliminate a branch as it was not raised within the prescribed time limits.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's assessments, finding that the appellant's property benefited from the relocation of the drain and that it was appropriate to assess the lands for tile drainage outlet into the municipal drain.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that proposed improvements to the Hoy Drain were unnecessary and should be abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the existing drain, designed in 1962, no longer provided adequate drainage for the neighbouring property, which had experienced ongoing water ponding despite the installation of private tiles.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that upgrading the outlet was a necessary first step to resolve the drainage issues.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in costs because they failed to provide credible evidence to support their assertions and necessitated an unnecessary hearing.

The appellants appealed the assessments for a municipal drain improvement under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued that they received no benefit from the proposed work and that the increased water runoff was caused by highway reconstruction.

The respondent's engineer testified that the assessments were based on current design standards and that the highway authority was appropriately assessed for the increased runoff from the road widening.

The Tribunal found the engineer's proposal reasonable and the assessments appropriate, dismissing the appeals.

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

The Township of Camden had no objections.

The Tribunal granted the application, permitting the appointment of an engineer to vary the assessment.

The appellants appealed the design and assessments in an engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

They argued that the drain's outlet into the river was insufficient, causing erosion and flooding on their property, and requested that the drain be relocated or that they receive an allowance for the insufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the flooding and erosion were caused by the river backing up, not by the water flowing from the drain.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to justify the delay and expense of investigating alternative routes or adjusting the assessments.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report regarding the repair and improvement of the Nantais Drain in the Town of LaSalle.

The appellants argued that the drain should be relocated entirely off their properties or enclosed, and challenged the allowances provided for land taken and working space.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the drain's location and enclosure, finding the proposed design appropriate and beneficial to the landowners at no cost to them.

The Tribunal confirmed most allowances but increased the allowance for one appellant whose property development might be affected by the increased setback requirements.

Several ratepayers appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the North Woolsey Drain, arguing that the proposed improvements (enclosing an open ditch with a tile drain) were too costly and that a clean-out would be preferable.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the main purpose of the proposed work was to eliminate the existing open ditch, which primarily benefited the abutting properties.

The Tribunal ordered the outlet assessment to be reduced by half, with the reduction charged to the lands assessed a special benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Township Council to circulate the revised assessment schedule, meet with the parties, and then decide whether to proceed with the project or simply clean out the drain.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Brick Road Drain.

The appellant experienced flooding on his property after a heavy rainstorm but admitted he was unsure if the issue was design or construction.

The respondent's engineer and drainage superintendent testified the drain was constructed to specifications.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it frivolous as the appellant provided no evidence that the construction failed to meet specifications, and ordered the appellant to pay $1,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for proposed work on the South Vance Drain.

The engineer's report proposed replacing a culvert, relocating the appellant's access culvert, and replacing an open ditch with a tile drain.

During the hearing, it became apparent that none of the assessed ratepayers, including the appellant, wanted the work on the appellant's land.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer to delete all work except the culvert replacement for another ratepayer, and adjusted the assessment for that culvert.

The appellant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs for creating confusion regarding the requested work.

Several landowners appealed the assessments levied against their properties for the Chappus Drainage System under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the Special Benefit Assessment for installing new, larger private drain crossing culverts was excessive compared to the fair market value of their lands.

The Tribunal agreed that assessing such large sums against small parcels with meagre returns was inequitable and ordered a 50% reduction in the Special Benefit Assessment for drain crossing culverts, with the difference added to the Town's assessment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed an appeal regarding the assessment of agricultural lands with a subsisting registered plan of subdivision, finding that a fixed per-lot levy was proper given the probable potential future use of the lands.

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) appealed a Court of Revision decision that reduced the drainage benefit assessment for agricultural lands and correspondingly increased MTO's assessment for the Hargreaves Drain 1994.

The drainage works were primarily required to provide an outlet for a newly constructed storm sewer system on Highway 401.

The Tribunal found that MTO has a legal duty to take artificially collected surface waters to a sufficient outlet, and that the agricultural lands downstream received minimal benefit from the works.

The Tribunal varied the assessment, ordering that MTO's benefit assessment be increased by $9,000, with a corresponding decrease applied to all agricultural lands north of the highway.

The appellants appealed the assessments levied against their lands for the construction of the Modde Drain.

The Engineer had designed a covered drain to provide an outlet for subsurface drainage from the northerly lands, and a shallow open drain to intercept surface flows and prevent flooding on the southerly lands.

The Engineer assessed the southerly lands for the covered drain based on historical ratios from a 1923 Award Drain.

The Tribunal found no justification for assessing the southerly lands for the covered drain, as they received no benefit or outlet from it.

The Tribunal also found that the northerly lands should bear part of the costs of the open drain, as it aided in the efficient removal of their surface flows.

The Tribunal ordered a revised schedule of assessment and amended the maintenance provisions accordingly.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a storm sewer and pumping system for a residential area along Lake Erie.

The appellant argued the project was premature, too costly, and could create a health hazard by impounding polluted waters.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the drainage system was carefully designed, necessary to solve existing flooding and road maintenance problems, and that there was no expert evidence to justify modifying the proposed system.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessments for a proposed drainage works.

The Engineer had initially assessed all eight properties equally for benefit, but the Court of Revision reduced the assessments for two smaller properties and redistributed the cost.

The Tribunal found that while the Engineer's premise of equal benefit for rear yard catchbasins was logical, adjustments were necessary for the common elements.

The Tribunal set the benefit assessment for the two smaller properties at $1,200 each and distributed the reduction equally among the other six properties.

The Tribunal also ordered that the private catchbasins be maintained by the property owners, not as part of the drainage works.

The appellant appealed his assessment for drainage works on the Ruscom River, arguing that his assessment should be reduced because the project was scaled down and that upstream owners should not pay for downstream private farm crossings.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessment method was equitable and that upstream owners are properly assessed for the replacement of downstream crossings destroyed during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered an amendment to the engineer's report to replace a costly cast-in-place concrete bridge with a precast concrete box low-flow crossing, as agreed by the municipality and the affected owner.

The appellant appealed his assessment for the improvement of the Escott Drain, which involved enclosing a portion of the open drain along a road allowance.

The appellant argued the drain should remain open and objected to the assessment.

The Tribunal found the assessment equitable, noting the benefits to the appellant's lands, including eliminated cleanout costs, reduced maintenance, and enhanced property value.

The appeal was dismissed.