Raymond Dobbin

On a summary judgment motion in long-running drainage litigation, the moving defendants sought dismissal on limitation grounds and substantial indemnity costs.

The responding plaintiffs opposed and sought related procedural relief, including amendment of pleadings to particularize nuisance and to plead discoverability and fraudulent concealment.

The court held that the record disclosed multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, including disputed facts regarding design, construction, disclosure obligations, and the interaction of potentially applicable statutory limitation regimes.

Summary judgment was dismissed, leave to further amend the amended statement of claim was granted, and the matter was directed to proceed expeditiously toward trial.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the Story Drain project under the Drainage Act.

The project involved incorporating an existing private drain enclosure into the municipal drain and replacing a failed section.

The appellants challenged the inclusion of prior engineering costs, the adequacy of allowances for right-of-way and existing drains, the assessment ratios, and the location of the outlet.

The Tribunal ordered a nominal allowance for the existing drain, adjusted the Benefit/Outlet assessment ratios to 60/40, removed a portion of the prior engineering costs, and confirmed the existing outlet location.

Requests for costs were denied.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for proposed work on the South Vance Drain.

The engineer's report proposed replacing a culvert, relocating the appellant's access culvert, and replacing an open ditch with a tile drain.

During the hearing, it became apparent that none of the assessed ratepayers, including the appellant, wanted the work on the appellant's land.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer to delete all work except the culvert replacement for another ratepayer, and adjusted the assessment for that culvert.

The appellant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs for creating confusion regarding the requested work.