John Kuntze

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Story Drain project under the Drainage Act.

The project involved incorporating an existing private drain enclosure into the municipal drain and replacing a failed section.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of prior engineering costs, the adequacy of allowances for right-of-way and existing drains, the assessment ratios, and the location of the outlet.

The Tribunal ordered a nominal allowance for the existing drain, adjusted the Benefit/Outlet assessment ratios to 60/40, removed a portion of the prior engineering costs, and confirmed the existing outlet location.

Requests for costs were denied.

The claimants sought damages against the municipality under s. 79 of the Drainage Act for failing to maintain and repair the Short Drain and 2A Drain despite repeated notices.

The municipality argued it acted with due diligence and that delays were caused by third parties, environmental orders, and policy decisions by the municipal council.

The Drainage Referee found that the municipality failed to fulfill its statutory duty to maintain the drains in a timely manner, noting that council members improperly interfered with the drainage superintendent's work.

The Referee held the municipality liable for damages resulting from the lack of repair, with the assessment of damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the assessments were too high and that downstream drainage issues should be addressed first.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed work, which included relocating a portion of the drain to follow the natural gradient, was necessary and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal found the assessments fair and equitable and dismissed the appeals, while granting the engineer's request to amend the working corridor and corresponding allowances.

The Elphicks petitioned for a municipal drain to address subsurface water issues in their backyard.

The appointed Engineer prepared a report recommending a drain extending across multiple properties, with costs assessed among the landowners.

Several neighbours appealed under s. 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing the drain was unnecessary and provided them no benefit.

Appeals were also filed under s. 54 regarding the Court of Revision's alteration of the assessments.

The Tribunal found a valid drainage problem existed but ordered the drain truncated to minimize costs while still providing a legal outlet.

A majority of the Tribunal also adjusted the benefit assessments, finding the Elphicks were the primary beneficiaries of the works.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the proposed Elphick Municipal Drain.

The appellants argued that no drainage problem existed and that the costs outweighed any benefits.

The Tribunal found that a valid drainage problem existed in the Elphicks' back yard but ordered the proposed drain to be truncated to reduce costs while still providing a sufficient legal outlet.

A majority of the Tribunal also revised the benefit assessments, finding that the Elphick property would be the greater beneficiary of the works.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding improvements to a municipal drain.

One set of appellants argued the works would lower the groundwater and dry up their well, while another appellant objected to the location of the works, the removal of trees and a fence, and the cost assessment.

The Tribunal accepted expert hydrogeological evidence that the drain works were downstream of the well's recharge area and would not affect the water supply.

The Tribunal also upheld the proposed location of the drain works but found the cost assessment against one appellant for ditching was excessive and ordered it reduced.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.

Appeals were brought under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report and Court of Revision assessments for the Saxon Drain.

The appellants sought modifications to the drain's design and cost-sharing assessments.

The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing assessments but ordered modifications to the drain's design, including the incorporation of a private junction box and a berm, and the installation of a new cross-connected catchbasin to better utilize the older part of the drain.

The engineer was directed to recalculate allowances for the incorporated works.

The appellants, owners of agricultural land, petitioned the municipality for improved drainage.

The municipality appointed an engineer who prepared a report recommending a new drain.

The municipality's council refused to adopt the report, citing concerns about costs and setting a precedent for draining farmers' fields.

The appellants appealed to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding a definite need for drainage and rejecting the municipality's rationale as lacking legal foundation.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to adopt the engineer's report and to pay the engineer's costs for attending the hearing.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the Walker Drain Improvement.

The Tribunal considered three alternative routes for the drain.

It ordered the drain to be reconstructed generally along its original route (Alternative C), finding it to be the lowest cost functional solution.

The Tribunal also ordered the engineer to vary the assessment methodology, allocating 35-40% of statutory benefit to roads and 60-65% to residential lands, and allowed direct appeals to the Tribunal from the revised engineer's report.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the Walker Drain Improvement project, citing new evidence about utility lines and costs that made the Tribunal's ordered route more expensive.

The Tribunal heard evidence from the municipality's engineer and several assessed landowners.

Finding the evidence insufficient to justify altering the route without further investigation, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and ordered the engineer to provide detailed plans, cost estimates, and consultation reports for alternative routes before making a final determination.

Several assessed landowners appealed the engineer's report for the Walker Drain Improvement under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed route for the drain relocation was not optimal and that the assessment of costs was unfair.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be referred back to the engineer to redesign the drain along an alternative route proposed by the appellants' engineer, which more closely aligned with the existing drain and minimized property damage.

The Tribunal also ordered modifications to the assessment methodology, adjusting the allocation of statutory benefits between roads and residential lands.

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Paradise Road Drain under the Drainage Act, seeking a change in the drain's location and increased compensation.

During the hearing, the appellants and the respondent municipality reached a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised in accordance with the settlement, which relocated the drain, reduced the appellants' assessment to zero, and increased their right-of-way allowance.

Property owners appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision concerning improvements to a municipal drain.

The municipality initiated the report to enclose a fragile section of the open drain and update assessment schedules.

Appellants challenged the necessity of the works and the engineer's apportionment of costs, specifically a $200 special benefit assessment levied on 38 nearby properties.

The Tribunal approved the proposed works, finding them necessary to prevent potential collapse and flooding.

However, the Tribunal found the $200 special levy unjustified, ordering its deletion and reallocating the costs by increasing the assessments on the four properties immediately abutting the works and adding a nominal levy to all parcels in the watershed.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Lewis and Maple Avenue South Drains.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments for the Lewis Drain as modified by the Court of Revision.

For the Maple Avenue South Drain, the Tribunal found the work was required but modified the assessment schedule to reflect that the major factor contributing to the need for the work was the construction of berms by one of the appellants, assessing a special benefit to that owner.

Appeals were filed under the Drainage Act regarding the engineer's report for the Lewis Municipal Drain and the Maple Avenue South Municipal Drain.

The appellants raised concerns about the proposed assessments, the location of the drain, and the potential impact on a fish farm.

During the hearing, alternative routes and designs were proposed, including a late report from a consultant that had not been disclosed to all parties.

The Tribunal declined to redesign the project or accept the late report without proper notice to affected landowners.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer for reconsideration and awarded costs against the appellant who filed the late report for wasting a hearing day.

Several assessed landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works were too extensive and that their assessments were disproportionate to the benefits received.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's 50% benefit and 50% outlet assessment division, finding it fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal declined to eliminate the proposed pumping station but ordered minor modifications to the report, including the addition of a high-water alarm system and the removal of a specific culvert.

The appeals were largely dismissed.

The appellant appealed under section 45(2) of the Drainage Act from the municipal council's failure to adopt an engineer's report for a proposed petition drain.

The council had refused to adopt the report, arguing that the area requiring drainage was smaller than determined by the engineer and that the report was flawed regarding water flow.

The Tribunal found no flaws in the engineer's report, noting that the engineer correctly designed the drain for the entire watershed area.

The Tribunal ordered the council to adopt the report and directed the municipality to pay the appellant's costs, finding that the council had acted irresponsibly by deferring the decision without seeking alternative expert opinions.