3 total
Subdivision appeal dismissed; County's precautionary hydrogeological conditions to protect municipal water supply deemed reasonable.
The applicant appealed the conditions of a draft plan of subdivision, specifically contesting the County's requirements for additional hydrogeological studies to protect the municipal water supply located in the Norwood Esker.
The applicant argued that sufficient work had already been done and that the County's demands were unnecessary and inequitable.
The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the County's hydrogeological experts, finding that a precautionary approach was warranted given the high vulnerability of the village's water source.
The Tribunal concluded that the County's revised conditions were reasonable, consistent with provincial policies on source water protection, and represented good planning in the public interest.
The appeal was dismissed.
Motion for property access to conduct borehole testing dismissed as premature and highly intrusive.
The County of Peterborough brought a motion seeking an order to allow the Township of Asphodel-Norwood and its engineering consultants access to the appellant's property.
The access was requested to conduct hydrogeological and stormwater management testing, including drilling boreholes, to prepare for an upcoming hearing regarding draft plan conditions.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested access was premature, highly intrusive, and not necessary for the disposition of the issues, as the necessity of the testing itself is a central issue to be determined at the main hearing.
Appeal dismissed; engineering firm not liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding pile foundation depth estimates.
The appellants, land developers, retained the respondent engineering firm to prepare a geotechnical report on soil conditions for a townhouse development.
The report estimated pile foundations would need to be driven to an average depth of 20 feet, but ultimately they had to be driven to 60 feet, resulting in additional construction costs.
The appellants sued for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.
The trial judge dismissed the action.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the failure to drill a sixth borehole was due to inaccessibility and that there was no evidence the respondent inaccurately interpreted the borehole data.
