Paul Elston

The Municipality of Bluewater brought a motion for directions regarding the proposed Ausable River Municipal Drain.

Following the withdrawal of several petitioners, the Referee determined that the third petition for the drain was no longer valid.

The Referee then apportioned the substantial costs incurred over the 10-year history of the failed project.

Costs for the first two petitions were assessed against the petitioners and the withdrawing municipality.

Costs related to environmental and cost-benefit studies were assessed against the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, which had requested them.

The remaining costs were divided equally among the petitioners, the Municipality of Bluewater, and the Municipality of South Huron.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report regarding the Gardiner Drain Extension 2004, arguing that the allowances for buffer strips were excessive and that the natural watercourse should not be altered due to environmental concerns.

The Tribunal found that the proposed works were necessary to provide a mechanism for future maintenance and that the allowances for buffer strips were appropriate for the protection of the drainage channel and fish habitat.

The appeal was dismissed and the engineer's report was confirmed.

The Municipality of Thames Centre requested a review of a Tribunal decision ordering the construction of a municipal drain along 'Alternative C'.

The Municipality and the project engineer advocated for 'Alternative B', citing landowner concerns and potential costs.

The Tribunal found that the engineer lacked independence and failed to properly investigate 'Alternative C'.

However, given a petition from 20 landowners supporting 'Alternative B', the Tribunal ordered construction along that route.

The Tribunal also ordered that engineering and legal costs incurred since February 2003 be assessed as a special benefit to the Municipality, as the subsequent proceedings were driven by the Municipality and provided no benefit to the drain.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Bluewater Properties Drain 2003.

The appellants argued that their properties in Phase 1 of the subdivision were already served by a private drain and should not be assessed for the new municipal drain.

The Tribunal found that the municipal drain would benefit Phase 1 owners by providing a reliable, municipality-maintained outlet.

The Tribunal ordered the installation of additional private drain connections, reduced the project cost estimate by removing a portion of a previous engineering report's cost, and reduced the statutory benefit assessments for the Phase 1 lots to reflect their existing private drainage.

The appeals were allowed in part.

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 appellant appealed a municipal drainage project, arguing that the initiating petition was deficient due to property misdescriptions, unauthorized signatures, and the failure of all joint owners to sign.

The Drainage Referee held that while minor property misdescriptions do not invalidate a petition, signatures by non-owners without clear written authorization are invalid.

Furthermore, following previous jurisprudence, the Referee determined that all joint owners must sign a drainage petition.

Because twelve signatures were found to be faulty, the petition was deemed insufficient and the by-law was quashed.

The appellants appealed the assessments for a municipal drain improvement under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

They argued that they received no benefit from the proposed work and that the increased water runoff was caused by highway reconstruction.

The respondent's engineer testified that the assessments were based on current design standards and that the highway authority was appropriately assessed for the increased runoff from the road widening.

The Tribunal found the engineer's proposal reasonable and the assessments appropriate, dismissing the appeals.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the Norman Heights Municipal Drain, arguing that the proposed drainage works should be modified, the allowances were insufficient, and the assessments were improper.

The appellant proposed a low-cost alternative using an existing tile drainage system.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant's alternative lacked sufficient investigation into the outlet's suitability, and that the engineer's allowances and assessments were reasonable and unbiased.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent municipality.