OAFRAAT 1996

The Township of Hay applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Koehler Municipal Drain.

The Village of Hensall confirmed it had no objections.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal granted the application and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report for the May Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the drain was unnecessary and that they should not be assessed for it, while the owners of the May property supported the drain but contested their assessment.

The Tribunal found that the project should proceed as recommended, as the engineer had properly considered alternatives and the appellants provided no evidence to contradict the project's benefits.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the benefit assessments, increasing the assessments for several properties and decreasing the assessment for the May property, while adding a special benefit assessment to the May property for excessive consultation costs.

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.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Brick Road Drain.

The appellant experienced flooding on his property after a heavy rainstorm but admitted he was unsure if the issue was design or construction.

The respondent's engineer and drainage superintendent testified the drain was constructed to specifications.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it frivolous as the appellant provided no evidence that the construction failed to meet specifications, and ordered the appellant to pay $1,000 in costs.