Brad Bunke

The appellants appealed their Outlet Liability assessment under the Drainage Act for the Komoka Drainage Works.

They argued the drainage works should be funded entirely by the municipality's Stormwater Management levy or that their assessment should be reduced due to an inappropriate equivalent factor applied to their agricultural land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' properties were not in the Settlement area and did not pay into the Stormwater levy.

The Tribunal also found the engineer's use of a 1.0 factor for agricultural lands was fair and reasonable, and that the assessment was calculated correctly using the modified Todgham method.

The appellant appealed the benefit/outlet assessments for the Workman Municipal Drain 2018 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

He argued his assessment was too high compared to downstream properties and that upstream wetlands would receive an improved outlet.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over his other concerns regarding the need, design, and cost of the works, as he missed the deadline to appeal under section 48.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the engineer that the assessments were developed using the modified Todgham method and were fair and equitable.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to an amendment to the engineer's report to include an inlet control device to ensure the upstream wetlands do not receive an improved outlet.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant argued the drain was over-designed, an earth berm was improperly designed, a private drain was illegal, and their lands should not be assessed.

The Tribunal dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding the design standards appropriate and the private drain legal.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal in part, ordering the engineer's report be modified to include a compacted clay key in the earth berm design and to plug an existing tile beneath the berm to properly support wetland development.

The appellants appealed the assessment applied to their property for the improvement and maintenance of a municipal drain under section 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

They argued their property was underdrained out of the watershed area and received no benefit from the drain.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the property had a three-metre fall directing surface water toward the drain, indirectly providing an improved outlet.

The Tribunal found the assessment, which had already been reduced by 50% to account for the portion drained out of the watershed, to be fair and reasonable.

The appeal was denied.