Bill Dietrich

The appellants appealed their municipal drain assessments under section 54 of the Drainage Act, seeking reductions in their outlet liability and benefit assessments.

They argued that a lower runoff factor should have been applied to their property, which is a provincially significant wetland, and that they received no benefit from the drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the outlet liability appeals because the appellants failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the municipality's engineer.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the $1,000 benefit assessment, reducing it to zero, as the property would not increase in value or be more easily maintained as a result of the works.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's report for the Royal Oak Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, challenging the costs and necessity of certain proposed works, including hydro seeding, riffles, Flexamat erosion control, tree removal, and farm crossings.

The Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering modifications to the report to require hand seeding on flat areas, the use of the lowest-costing Flexamat-type product, the removal of an at-grade crossing on one appellant's property, and consideration of an allowance for loss of access.

The Tribunal otherwise upheld the report's recommendations, finding the proposed works necessary and technically sound.