Jim Renick

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Mullen Drain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding silt fencing, debris, ditch bottom elevations, standing water, and other construction details, but provided no engineering evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the drainage engineer that the drain was constructed according to the plans and specifications and was performing as designed.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove the drainage works were not constructed as designed.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing an engineer to amend a drainage report, the appellant appealed the revised assessments.

At the hearing, the appellant presented no evidence challenging the assessments, instead attempting to relitigate the previously decided issue of how excavated material should be divided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process.

Finding the hearing unnecessary, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs to both the municipality and the co-appellant.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's report for the Mullen Drain under the Drainage Act.

The Tribunal ordered modifications to the report, including centering the open drain on the property line, removing an earth berm and drop inlet structures, and placing excavated material on the Mullen property.

The Tribunal upheld the Engineer's methodology for the benefit and outlet liability assessments but ordered recalculations based on the modified works.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal their assessment for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

They initially chose not to appeal the Court of Revision's decision due to cost concerns, but sought an extension after the tendered project cost significantly exceeded the engineer's estimate.

The Tribunal applied the Bellcraft factors and denied the motion, finding the applicants made a conscious decision not to appeal within the statutory timeframe, failed to provide evidence supporting their objection to the assessment, and did not demonstrate that the delay would not prejudice other affected landowners.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act concerning a proposed retaining wall to address bank erosion on her property.

The appellant argued the report was deficient and that the municipality failed to provide the required statutory notice to the conservation authority prior to appointing the engineer.

The Tribunal found that the municipality failed to provide the mandatory 30 days' notice to the conservation authority under section 78(2) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal identified numerous deficiencies in the Engineer's Report, including missing plans, profiles, and specifications required by section 8.

Consequently, the appeal was granted and the Engineer's Report was set aside.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal under section 5(2) of the Drainage Act from the municipality's decision not to appoint an engineer to prepare a report to improve a drain.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality appointed an engineer.

The appellant requested the Tribunal set aside the appointment and appoint its own engineer due to the municipality's historical delays.

The Tribunal declined to interfere, noting the municipality had complied with the Act by appointing a qualified engineer and had committed to proceeding expeditiously with the report and interim maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.