Paul Courey

The appellants appealed a drainage report concerning the Hostine Drain East Branch under the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a full uncontested settlement, contingent on the appellants obtaining approval for a subsequent connection to the main drain.

After the approval was obtained, the Tribunal issued a consent order amending the drainage report in accordance with an addendum, directing the municipal clerk to give effect to the amended report, and allocating engineering costs.

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 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) brought a motion for party status in an appeal under the Drainage Act concerning drainage works on the appellant's lands.

The appellant opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that UTRCA's intervention as a party was premature, consistent with a previous decision involving the same parties, because the engineer's report appealed from was not a report concerning the construction of drainage works.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for party status but exercised its discretion to add UTRCA as a Participant with limited rights.

The appellants appealed the final engineer's report for the proposed Frank Szeder Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing that the project was delayed excessively and the proposed design was flawed and too costly.

The Tribunal found that while the 12-year delay was excessive, the appellants failed to provide evidence that the proposed drainage work was technically flawed or that the costs outweighed the benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the engineer's report, but limited the chargeable engineering costs to $108,130 to account for the excessive delay.

The appellants appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Hostine Drain East Branch.

The Tribunal considered whether one of the appellants had standing to appeal under section 54 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that standing under section 54 requires the appellant to have been a party to the appeal before the court of revision.

Because the appellant was not an owner of land assessed for the drainage works, she could not have been a party before the court of revision.

Consequently, her appeal was dismissed for lack of standing.

The appellant sought $1,000 in costs against a non-party and a newly added party for an improperly brought motion to be added as a party to a drainage appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for costs, finding no authority to award costs against a non-party and concluding that the added party's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.

The Tribunal noted that costs should only be ordered in the most egregious circumstances, which were not present here.

The appellant brought a motion for an order directing the respondent municipality and third parties to produce various planning and environmental documents related to lands within the watershed of a proposed drain.

The appellant argued the documents were necessary to evaluate the drain's impact on its property.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to provide evidentiary foundation, such as expert affidavit evidence, to prove the requested documents were arguably relevant to the issues of flow and contamination on the appeal.

Several landowners appealed the 2022 Engineer's Report for the Cranberry Creek Municipal Drain, arguing that the land use factors (LUFs) were incorrect, the Pump and Dyke System was improperly included, and their properties were assessed too high.

The Tribunal found that the LUFs should have followed the Tribunal's 2020 Decision, which assigned lower factors to forested lands and provincially significant wetlands.

The Tribunal also found that the Pump and Dyke System had been abandoned and its inclusion constituted reconstruction, which falls outside the scope of a section 76 report.

Due to these and other significant errors in land use classification, the Tribunal set aside the 2022 Report.

This application concerned a dispute over the administration of an estate, specifically the sale of the deceased's home to one of the estate trustees and a $40,000 cheque cashed by another trustee after the deceased's death.

The court found that the trustees breached their fiduciary duties by selling the home below fair market value and that the $40,000 cheque was not a valid gift as it was cashed after the donor's death.

The court ordered the trustee who purchased the home to reimburse the estate for the undervaluation and the trustee who cashed the cheque to return the funds.

The court declined to remove the trustees or nullify the home sale.

The appellants appealed their assessment under the Drainage Act for the replacement of the McClure Bridge, arguing their lands drained into a different drain than the one assessed.

The Tribunal found that the natural flow of water from the appellants' properties was towards the Curry Marsh Drain West Branch, not the Crawford Drain as relied upon by the engineer's report.

The Tribunal concluded the engineer should have recommended a new watershed investigation upon discovering contradictions between historical reports and actual water flows.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants' assessment was removed and reallocated to the Township.

The appellants brought a motion seeking declarations that the respondent municipalities lacked jurisdiction to refer an engineer's drainage report back for reconsideration, arguing the matter was before the Drainage Referee.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Section 57 of the Drainage Act provides clear authority for a municipal council to refer a report back to the engineer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal also noted there was no evidence of improper motive and that raising the jurisdictional issue at this stage was inappropriate.

Several appellants brought motions for disclosure of documents and extensions of time in an appeal under section 54 of the Drainage Act regarding the Cranberry Creek Drain.

The Tribunal found that most of the moving parties failed to provide affidavits with their motion materials as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents or grounds for an extension.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions of Larwill, Leger, and the Whitmores, but ordered the City of Ottawa to produce one specific document relating to land use factors to the Harpers.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) brought a motion for party status in an appeal under the Drainage Act regarding a petition for drainage works.

The Township of Zorra had previously declined to proceed with the drainage works because the potential outlet was subject to a court order requiring the petitioner to rehabilitate lands under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the UTRCA's motion, finding that while its interests might be affected if an engineer's report is eventually produced, its intervention as a party at this preliminary stage of the appeal was premature.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for injurious affection resulting from the construction of municipal sewage works encroaching on the claimant's property.

The Tribunal directed the parties to deliver fresh pleadings and issued a Procedural Order setting a six-day hearing to commence in September 2024.

The moving parties brought a motion for an extension of time to file appeals under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act regarding a municipal drain.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the section 48 appeals, finding a bona fide intention to appeal, a reasonable excuse for the short delay due to illness, and triable issues.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion regarding the section 54 appeals because no such appeals had actually been filed to date, leaving the length of delay undetermined.

The appellants appealed their assessments for the construction and future maintenance costs of the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain Phase 1 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments should be reduced or eliminated due to lack of benefit and alleged negligence by the municipality in managing drainage infrastructure.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the properties did benefit from the drainage works and that the assessments were fairly and reasonably calculated using the Todgham method.

The Appellant appealed the Engineer's Report for the proposed Noah Martin Municipal Drain under section 48 of the Drainage Act, arguing a lack of procedural fairness, requesting the drain be relocated off his property, seeking explicit permission for future underdrainage connections, and claiming insufficient allowances.

The Tribunal found that statutory consultation processes were followed and accepted the engineer's proposed route.

However, the Tribunal ordered the Engineer's Report to be revised to explicitly state the drain has capacity for the Appellant's future underdrainage and increased the section 30 allowance for damages by $1,000 to account for additional fence crossings.

The moving parties brought a motion requesting an extension of time to file an appeal under Section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding a municipal drain.

The municipality opposed the motion, arguing prejudice as drainage work had already commenced under an emergency authorization.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had a bona fide intention to appeal, the municipality would be prejudiced, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as it misunderstood the purpose and scope of the Act.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessments allocated to his properties under section 54 of the Drainage Act regarding the Switzer Drain.

The appellant argued that the project primarily benefited another property owner and that his assessments were unfair, particularly given a previous cleanout he funded.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the municipal engineer, who used a modified Todgham Method to calculate the assessments, and found that the assessments were fair, reasonable, and in compliance with the Drainage Act.

The appeal was denied.

At a pre-hearing conference in a municipal drain matter, the Tribunal considered whether to accept an appeal purportedly brought under s. 54 of the Drainage Act from the Court of Revision.

The Tribunal held that the moving landowners had not filed an appeal to the Court of Revision and did not dispute their assessment, so there was no appealable decision under s. 54.

The concerns raised to the Court of Revision were outside that body's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal therefore declined to accept the appeal, while indicating that any further challenge to the drainage report would have to proceed, if at all, by a late motion seeking an extension of time for an appeal under ss. 48 and 100.