Gerard Rood

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of a drainage works under section 64 of the Drainage Act.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove the drain was not constructed as designed.

The respondent municipality subsequently sought costs.

The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct unreasonable and frivolous, noting she presented no engineering evidence and attempted to relitigate decided issues.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay $6,638.40, representing 80% of the municipality's costs, with the remainder apportioned to the drain.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Mullen Drain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding silt fencing, debris, ditch bottom elevations, standing water, and other construction details, but provided no engineering evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the drainage engineer that the drain was constructed according to the plans and specifications and was performing as designed.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove the drainage works were not constructed as designed.

The appellants appealed the revised drainage assessments for their agricultural property under the Drainage Act following two property severances.

The Town had directed the engineer to revise the assessment schedule to reflect the severances, which resulted in a disproportionate assessment per acre for the appellants compared to a similar neighbouring property.

The Tribunal found the engineer's revised assessment was not fair or transparent, as the engineer could not explain the anomalous results or the precise application of his proximity and envelope concepts.

The appeal was granted, and the Tribunal re-balanced the assessments among the severed properties based on the original schedule.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's report for the Mullen Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal ordered modifications to the report, including centering the open drain on the property line, removing an earth berm and drop inlet structures, and placing excavated material on the Mullen property.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's methodology for the benefit and outlet liability assessments but ordered recalculations based on the modified works.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the Fox-Jakait Drain.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer failed to properly allocate costs associated with road crossings to the road authority as mandatorily required by section 26 of the Drainage Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessment against the appellants unfairly applied a runoff coefficient of 0.50, failing to account for the 0.25 coefficient mandated by their existing development agreement and stormwater management plan.

The Tribunal ordered the Schedule of Assessment to be amended accordingly.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decisions of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the 4th Concession Drain in the Town of Kingsville.

The appellants raised issues concerning the necessity of widening the drain, compensation for tree removal, the cost of culvert replacement, and the calculation of their assessments based on property features like ponds and woodlots.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the appeals, accepting the engineer's evidence that the widening was necessary to prevent flooding and that the assessments were properly calculated.

However, the Tribunal granted the appeal of Ryan and Samantha Spitse in part, reducing their affected area and corresponding assessments to reflect the actual size of their property.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the East Ruthven Drain, arguing that the single Construction Schedule of Assessment was inappropriate and that the 91%/9% Benefit/Outlet split unfairly penalized the appellant.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's report methodology, finding that the road formed a barrier to drainage and that the assessment split was logical.

The appeal was denied, save for a minor correction assessing the cost of relocating water services to the respondent as the water utility.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Krueger Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the proposed route, design, allowances, and assessments.

The appellant argued for an alternative east-west drainage route and disputed the compensation for land and trees.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the engineer's report to be logical, well-reasoned, and fair.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's proposed north-south route and found no professional evidence to support the appellant's preferred alternative.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Spring-Water Evergreen Beach Drainage System under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works were too costly, the route should be modified, and the assessments were inappropriate.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the traditional flow route recommended in the engineer's report was the proper choice to provide a sufficient outlet for County Road 50.

The Tribunal confirmed the allowances and assessments with minor technical changes regarding the water main and beach roads.