Andy McBride

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Bruce Municipal Drain No. 19.

They challenged the assessments and design, particularly the increased costs associated with fish habitat accommodations required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the fish habitat design changes, finding the engineer was obliged to comply with federal law.

However, the Tribunal directed that the costs of the fish habitat study be assessed to the Municipality, not the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority.

The Tribunal granted the appellant Munro compensation for insufficient outlet and directed that the buffer strips be widened to 6 metres to accommodate excavated spoil.

The Tribunal also directed the engineer to recalculate the assessment for a municipal landfill site using an industrial land value rather than an agricultural one.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the incorporation of an existing private drain as a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that the drain was not required, its location should be changed, and the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that a municipal drain was required but expressed concern over the condition of the existing private drain.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to determine if the drain could be connected to a sanitary sewer, and if not, to redesign the drain to current provincial standards with a route closer to the appellant's property line.

The Tribunal also adjusted the benefit assessments between the properties.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Referee to quash a by-law adopting a drainage report, arguing the underlying petition was invalid.

The petition was signed by a single landowner whose property constituted the only area requiring drainage, though it was a minority of the total watershed.

The Referee dismissed the appeal, accepting the drainage engineer's professional opinion that the upstream and downstream lands did not require drainage due to topography and land use.

The Referee held that the petition met the requirements of the Drainage Act because the single signatory owned at least 60 percent of the hectarage in the specific area requiring drainage.

The appellants appealed a municipal by-law adopting a drainage report, arguing the petition for the drainage works was invalid under Section 4 of the Drainage Act because it was signed by only one landowner in a larger watershed.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the appeal, accepting the drainage engineer's professional opinion that the single petitioner's property was the only 'area requiring drainage' due to the topography and land use of the surrounding properties.

As the petitioner owned 60% of the hectarage in the specific area requiring drainage, the petition was valid.