Ken Smith

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessment for the reconstruction of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that they had already paid for a previous drain improvement in 2014 that met their needs, and that the new drain primarily benefited upstream landowners by providing a deeper outlet.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellants' expert that the benefit assessment should consider the area of lands receiving benefit rather than just the length of the drain on each property.

The Tribunal ordered a 50% reduction in the appellants' benefit assessment, reallocating the costs pro-rata among the other assessed lands.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant municipality for negligence and nuisance, alleging that a replacement culvert installed by the municipality caused flooding that damaged their buildings.

The buildings were constructed on the municipality's shore road allowance pursuant to building permits issued decades earlier.

The court found that the new culvert was not the cause of the flooding, as the property had a history of flooding prior to its installation.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality did not owe a private law duty of care to prevent flooding on its own land, and its decision not to undertake further hydrological studies was a protected policy decision.

The action was dismissed.