Mike DeVos

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for the improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

The report proposed removing a retaining wall on the appellants' property that had recently been reconstructed under an emergency designation by the Minister.

The Tribunal found that the emergency reconstruction was not supervised by an engineer as required by the Minister's condition, and the current engineer's report failed to properly analyze whether the wall could be incorporated into the drainage works.

The Tribunal set aside the engineer's report and ordered a new report to be prepared at the municipality's expense.

The applicants, property owners along Erie Shore Drive, appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee regarding preliminary issues in their application for damages against the municipality for failing to maintain and repair the Burk Drainage Works.

The municipality cross-appealed the Referee's finding that section 79 of the Drainage Act is a strict liability provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Referee's findings that the applicants' initial notice was insufficient, that damages are limited to those occurring 45 days after proper notice is given, that historical seawalls had been lawfully replaced rather than abandoned, and that section 79 imposes strict liability without requiring proof of common law injurious affection.

The Appellants appealed a municipal drainage report (the Spriet Report) under s. 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have it set aside and replaced with their own private drainage works.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants' private works were undertaken without authorization and did not provide a benefit commensurate with the estimated costs to the watershed.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the municipality's drainage engineer over the Appellants' civil engineer, concluding that the Spriet Report provided a sufficient outlet and met design standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the Spriet Report was adopted.

Several residential property owners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Sinclair Drain/Virostek Drain 2014 under the Drainage Act, challenging the necessity of the works, the proposed design, and the assessments levied against them.

The appellants argued they should not have to pay for drainage improvements that primarily benefit adjacent agricultural lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed covered drain was the most cost-effective and technically sound solution.

The Tribunal accepted the Engineer's evidence that the residential development had obstructed natural surface water flows, and upheld the assessments as fairly distributed using the modified Todgham Method.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the Centre Dingman Creek Drain Branch 'D' under the Drainage Act.

The appellants challenged the assessments levied against their properties, the design of the drainage works, and the adequacy of compensation and allowances.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, accepting the Engineer's evidence that the proposed works were necessary to address drainage issues in the urban community of Mossley and that the design met provincial standards.

The Tribunal found the assessment methodology to be logical, equitable, and compliant with the Act, and declined to modify the drainage works or adjust the assessments.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Forsyth Drainage Works-Garden Avenue Branches.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement which involved revisions to the engineer's report.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to permit a late appeal under Section 48(1) of the Drainage Act to modify the report.

The Tribunal found the Minutes of Settlement to be a satisfactory resolution and ordered that the Revised Engineer's Report replace the original report in the provisional by-law.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report for a proposed municipal drain, arguing the design lacked a sufficient safety margin for flooding and would damage mature trees on their property line.

The Tribunal found the drain design was technically sound and adequate for a 100-year storm event.

While acknowledging the potential trauma to the trees, the Tribunal concluded the overall area would benefit from the drainage works and urged the municipality to address tree preservation and compensation in the subdivision agreement.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to minor modifications to the engineer's report regarding road elevations and maintenance.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for the Middleton Street Drain 2001, arguing that existing natural drainage and dry wells were sufficient and that they should not be assessed for works designed to serve future developments.

The Tribunal found that the proposed storm water management system was necessary to comply with Ministry of Environment policies.

However, the Tribunal partially granted the appeals regarding the assessments, ordering adjustments to the benefit and outlet assessments for specific properties, including Coldstream Farms, to ensure a fairer distribution of costs.