OAFRAAT 1995

The appellants filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The Township Council accepted the petition and decided to proceed, but subsequently failed to appoint an engineer without providing reasons.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that once a council decides to proceed with a petition, it is bound to appoint an engineer unless cogent reasons are provided.

The Tribunal ordered the Township to appoint an engineer within 60 days, failing which the Tribunal would make the appointment.

The Township of Rochester applied to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal to amend the drainage report of L. Zarlenga, P. Eng., concerning the access bridges and drain enclosures for the roadside portion of the Kelly Drain.

The Tribunal ordered several amendments to the report, including changes to the pipe materials, the deletion and addition of specific culvert pipes and catchbasins for various lots, and the removal of a benefit assessment for certain landowners.

The cost of all additional work was ordered to be assessed to a specific individual, with no order as to costs for the application itself.

Several landowners appealed the Engineer's Report for the Highway No. 7 Drainage Works in the Township of Woolwich.

The appellants challenged the proposed modifications to the drain, the adequacy of allowances for land taken and crop damage, and the benefit and outlet liability assessments.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeals regarding the drain modifications and allowances, finding the Engineer's design appropriate and the allowances generous.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the benefit assessments, increasing the amounts levied against Highway No. 7, Regional Road No. 30, and Waterloo Flowers, as the drainage works were primarily constructed to provide outlets for them.

The Tribunal also ruled that the costs for enhancing or preserving fish habitat could not be assessed against the affected lands under the Drainage Act, as such works do not fall within the definition of drainage works.

One panel member dissented on the fish habitat issue.

Several landowners and the Township of Springwater appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Stone/Ververs Municipal Drain.

The Court of Revision had reduced the benefit assessment for one landowner, G. Ververs, to zero, redistributing it to others.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found the Engineer's original assessments were properly calculated and restored them.

The Tribunal also increased the allowance granted to Ververs for crop damage from $300 to $600, assessing the increase proportionally against the main drain watershed.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report concerning the McBrayne Drain under the Drainage Act.

The appellant sought to have his benefit assessment removed and to have other landowners assessed for cutoff benefit and the cost of an access culvert.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the appellant's benefit assessment and the cutoff benefit for other landowners, finding the engineer's methodology sound.

However, the Tribunal varied the report to assess two other landowners for a portion of the cost of an access culvert that primarily benefited their lands, reducing the special benefit assessment against the municipality.

The Tribunal also awarded costs against the appellant, characterizing his appeal as bordering on vexatious given his long history of pursuing the municipality for an outlet for his subsurface drainage system.

The appellant ski club appealed an outlet liability assessment for proposed drainage works on the Ford Outlet Drain.

The Engineer had assessed the appellant's lands, despite them being riparian, on the assumption that the appellant's snow-making operations constituted an unreasonable use of the natural watercourse.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not make snow within the watershed and did not discharge snow-melt into the natural watercourse.

Consequently, the appellant was not making an unreasonable use of the watercourse, and its outlet liability assessment was reduced to zero.

The resulting shortfall was reapportioned as benefit assessments against other properties and roads, including Highway No. 26, which the Tribunal found was the primary beneficiary of the proposed culvert replacement.

The appellants appealed the assessments levied against their lands for the construction of the Modde Drain.

The Engineer had designed a covered drain to provide an outlet for subsurface drainage from the northerly lands, and a shallow open drain to intercept surface flows and prevent flooding on the southerly lands.

The Engineer assessed the southerly lands for the covered drain based on historical ratios from a 1923 Award Drain.

The Tribunal found no justification for assessing the southerly lands for the covered drain, as they received no benefit or outlet from it.

The Tribunal also found that the northerly lands should bear part of the costs of the open drain, as it aided in the efficient removal of their surface flows.

The Tribunal ordered a revised schedule of assessment and amended the maintenance provisions accordingly.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report proposing the construction of a storm sewer and pumping system for a residential area along Lake Erie.

The appellant argued the project was premature, too costly, and could create a health hazard by impounding polluted waters.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the drainage system was carefully designed, necessary to solve existing flooding and road maintenance problems, and that there was no expert evidence to justify modifying the proposed system.

The appellant appealed his assessment for drainage works on the Ruscom River, arguing that his assessment should be reduced because the project was scaled down and that upstream owners should not pay for downstream private farm crossings.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessment method was equitable and that upstream owners are properly assessed for the replacement of downstream crossings destroyed during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered an amendment to the engineer's report to replace a costly cast-in-place concrete bridge with a precast concrete box low-flow crossing, as agreed by the municipality and the affected owner.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the benefit assessments for a proposed drainage works.

The Engineer had initially assessed all eight properties equally for benefit, but the Court of Revision reduced the assessments for two smaller properties and redistributed the cost.

The Tribunal found that while the Engineer's premise of equal benefit for rear yard catchbasins was logical, adjustments were necessary for the common elements.

The Tribunal set the benefit assessment for the two smaller properties at $1,200 each and distributed the reduction equally among the other six properties.

The Tribunal also ordered that the private catchbasins be maintained by the property owners, not as part of the drainage works.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the construction of the Gill Road Municipal Drain, arguing that the assessments levied against their residential properties were inequitable and that they were misled about the availability of government grants.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the primary purpose of the drainage works was to upgrade Gill Road to service a new residential development.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the benefit assessment against Gill Road to be increased to $70,000, with the corresponding reduction applied to the residential properties.

The Tribunal also reduced one appellant's outlet liability assessment to zero, finding no justification for it, but otherwise upheld the engineer's assessments for agricultural and institutional lands.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report regarding the repair of washouts in the Abray Drain.

The Report assessed the majority of the erosion control costs against upstream landowners, theorizing the damage was caused by water flowing in the drain.

The Tribunal found that the physical evidence overwhelmingly indicated the washouts were caused by surface waters flowing from the adjoining landowner's property into the drain.

Consequently, the Tribunal varied the assessment, ordering that the costs of the erosion control work be levied primarily against the adjoining landowner.