Ray Dobbin

The appellants appealed the engineer's report for the repair and improvement of the McClure Drain under the Drainage Act, challenging the watershed area, the Benefit/Outlet cost splits, the treatment of two culverts, and the allowances provided.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's methodology for the cost splits and the watershed area, noting it was based on detailed field investigations.

However, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the easterly culvert should be classified as an erosion control feature and the westerly culvert as the primary access to the appellant's lands.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report to be revised to incorporate these culverts into the drain and adjust the Special Benefit assessment for the westerly culvert accordingly.

The appeal was granted in part.

The appellants appealed the assessments levied against their property in the Engineer's Report for the Bateman Municipal Drain, arguing that the watershed boundaries were incorrect, certain benefit assessments were unjustified, and specific design changes were needed.

They also claimed the Court of Revision refused to hear their appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Engineer's methodology for distributing costs was fair and equitable, and that design changes must be appealed under section 48, not section 54.

The Tribunal also found the Court of Revision acted correctly in refusing to hear design matters.

The Municipality's request for costs was denied as the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious.

The appellants appealed the assessments and the Engineer's Report regarding the Luckins Drain West and Luckins Drain East.

The appellants argued that they derived negligible benefit from the drain and that the assessments were too high.

The Tribunal found that the principles applied by the Engineer to determine the Schedule of Assessments were consistent with the Drainage Act and generally accepted practice.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Court of Revision and confirmed the assessments set out in the Engineer's Report.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the construction of a municipal drain, arguing their assessment was too high and the allowances provided to the neighbouring property were inappropriate.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' property would benefit from the cut-off of surface waters and improved outlet, justifying the assessment.

The Tribunal also held that the allowances for right-of-way and damages were reasonable.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming the engineer's report and assessments for the Stefanik Drain.

The appellants argued that they were riparian owners on a natural watercourse and therefore should not be assessed for outlet liability.

The Tribunal conducted a site view and concluded that the channel in question was not a natural watercourse with riparian rights, but rather a swale used as an outlet for tile drainage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drain provided a legal outlet for the upper properties, justifying an outlet assessment.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the assessment ratio, determining that the main purpose of the work was to reclaim land on the lower property, and modified the schedule of assessment accordingly.