Jeff Dickson

Several landowners appealed the assessments and allowances in the Engineer's Report for the South Innisfil Creek Drain Improvement under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that the municipality should bear more costs due to past lack of maintenance, and that the drain improvements would not benefit them until downstream culverts were replaced.

A golf course owner appealed the allowance for loss of access, arguing it should cover four bridges instead of one.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals, finding the engineer's allocations fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal allowed the golf course's appeal in part, increasing the allowance for one bridge from $41,600 to $137,500 based on expert evidence, while agreeing that only one bridge should be funded by the drain.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Beets Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his lands did not require additional drainage, that the proposed drain would interfere with his farming operations, and that the allowances provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support modifying the assessments or allowances.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's proposed modifications to the drainage works, finding they did not provide a sufficient outlet as required by the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied and the Engineer's Report was confirmed.