John R. Spriet

The appellant appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act regarding the St. John's Marsh Drain.

The appellant argued that the proposed abandonment of a section of the drain within conservation lands and the installation of a weir would exacerbate flooding on his agricultural lands.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's recommendation to abandon the unfindable section of the drain within the conservation lands but ordered the removal of the proposed Newbury Weir from the report to prevent further aggravation of the appellant's drainage issues.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Haws Drain 2012, arguing that their forested property received no benefit from the proposed drainage works and should not be assessed $911.

The Tribunal found the Engineer's methods for calculating the assessments to be technically sound and compliant with the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments, noting that the property would benefit from access to a new legal drain outlet, which enhances the property's value.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the incorporation of an existing private drain as a municipal drain.

The appellant argued that the drain was not required, its location should be changed, and the assessments were unfair.

The Tribunal found that a municipal drain was required but expressed concern over the condition of the existing private drain.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to determine if the drain could be connected to a sanitary sewer, and if not, to redesign the drain to current provincial standards with a route closer to the appellant's property line.

The Tribunal also adjusted the benefit assessments between the properties.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the proposed Klijn Municipal Drain.

The engineer had proposed a Northern route for a closed tile drain, which was more expensive but preferred by neighbouring landowners to avoid crossing their properties.

The appellant argued for a Western route following the natural flow of water or an open ditch.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Western route was cheaper, followed the natural water flow, and would service the entire watershed.

The Tribunal directed the municipality to refer the report back to the engineer to design the drain along the Western route and give downstream owners the option of an open or closed drain.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed Louks Drain in the Township of Norfolk.

The appellants argued that the drain was unnecessary, the route should be modified, and their assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to halt the construction or alter the proposed route, noting the project was driven by the need to provide drainage to residential lots.

However, the Tribunal made minor adjustments to the statutory benefit and outlet liability assessments for specific properties to better reflect the actual benefits received.

The appeals under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act were otherwise dismissed.