John Spriet

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 appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the VanBuuren Municipal Drain Branch 'A'.

The appellants argued for an alternative drain design and that the municipality should bear a larger portion of the costs due to its past inaction on drainage issues during lot severances.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the alternative design was not feasible and that the assessments were calculated in compliance with the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied.

The appellants, landowners, sought compensation from the Township for crop loss and land damage caused by flooding and erosion from the Foster Municipal Drain.

The flooding resulted from the unauthorized addition of lands to the drain's watershed and the Township's failure to maintain a plug to prevent the excess water flow.

The Drainage Referee found the Township negligent and liable for damages, awarding the appellants compensation for crop losses, engineering fees, and permanent land loss.

However, the Referee also found one of the appellants guilty of an offence under the Drainage Act for unilaterally filling up a portion of the drainage works, imposing a $1,000 fine to be deducted from the damages award.

The appellants sought increased allowances for soil restoration work and repairs to private tile drains following the construction of a municipal drain.

The Ontario Drainage Referee found that while the soil restoration was necessary, the appellants had elected to infill the drain to pre-1975 levels at a substantial extra cost, which went beyond the recommendations of the drainage engineer and soil experts.

The Referee granted an additional $10,000 allowance for the restoration work and a $3,000 allowance for potential minor repairs to the private tile drains, concluding that the public should not bear the full burden of the appellants' personal restoration objectives.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for the proposed Fekete Drain under the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns about the benefit assessment for an open ditch through their woodlot, the lack of compensation for tree damage, and the size and cost of a farm crossing culvert.

The Tribunal found the benefit assessment for the open ditch was too high compared to downstream properties and ordered it reduced.

However, the Tribunal upheld the engineer's approach to allowances for damages, noting commitments to minimize tree damage during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered the report amended to lengthen the culvert and specify equipment access routes.

The appellants appealed regarding the R.F. McLennan Drain.

A court-appointed drainage engineer prepared a report confirming that the 1975 drain installation was severely flawed and recommended new tile installation under two options.

The Drainage Referee approved the report with amendments, adopting the higher-capacity Option B. Due to the faulty prior installation, the Referee ordered the municipality and the provincial ministry to each pay a $55,000 special assessment toward construction costs.

The Referee also granted a $17,000 special allowance to the appellants for soil rehabilitation due to prolonged damage to their agricultural land.

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

The appellants argued that the existing drain was sufficient for their needs and that the cost of the proposed upgrade was not commensurate with the benefits.

The respondent municipality, supported by the engineer and another landowner experiencing ponding and crop loss, argued the upgrade was necessary to meet current design standards.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the project had merit and that the appellants failed to provide concrete evidence to justify abandoning the work or altering the assessments.

The appellant appealed the assessment for improvements to a municipal drain adjacent to his property.

The appellant argued that the municipality had previously promised to repair the eroding ditch bank as maintenance at a minimal cost, but later required a new engineer's report for improvements, resulting in a significantly higher assessment.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed work constituted an improvement requiring a new report, the municipality had misled the appellant regarding the cost and timing of repairs.

Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the appellant's benefit assessment and increased the assessment against the municipality's roads.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment for the Laidlaw Drain.

The appellant argued that the assessment was unjustified and that the drain provided no benefit to its property.

The respondent's engineer testified that the assessment was calculated using the Todgham method and that the appellant did receive a benefit.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's methodology and found the assessment to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.