Nathan Kolomaya

The applicant withdrew his application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 two days before the scheduled hearing.

The respondent municipality sought costs, arguing the applicant engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to provide ordered disclosure, failing to attend a motion, and delaying the withdrawal.

The Board found the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and disrespectful of the Board's process, warranting a costs award.

However, the conduct was not deemed reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,097.05.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal resolved a dispute between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and the applicants regarding the wording of the Issues List for an upcoming hearing.

MMAH sought to include wording that definitively stated the subject lands were within a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal agreed with the applicants that this was a contested material fact that MMAH must prove through evidence at the hearing, and amended the issues to remove the definitive statement.

The Norfolk County Roads Department appealed the Engineer's report for the Decou Road Drain, arguing that the assessments for benefit and outlet liability for Branch B were disproportionately levied against the municipality.

The Engineer had assessed 100% of the remaining capital costs and future maintenance costs for Branch B against Norfolk County, while assessing other affected properties at zero dollars.

The Tribunal found that the construction of Branch B offered significant benefit to other directly affected properties and that the assessment of capital and maintenance costs solely against the municipality was inequitable.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the Engineer to revise the Schedule of Assessment for Branch B to include appropriate assessments for benefit and outlet liability against all affected lands.