Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West
Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Harmony Road Drain Township of Delhi
Harmony Road Drain (RE) 1999 ONAFRAAT 23
STATUTE:
Drainage Act
HEARING:
August 18-24, 1999
DATE OF DECISION:
September 9, 1999
1999-23
NEUTRAL CITATION:
1999 ONAFRAAT 23
Harmony Road Drain Township of Delhi
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.D.17 AS AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
An appeal to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal by Les and Irene Wawrow, John D. Hill and Robert J. Twyman under Sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act and Doug Jeneveaux, Mac Churchill and Hazel Atkinson under Section 48 of the Act, from the decision of the Court of Revision and from the engineer’s report dated March 22, 1999 on the Harmony Road Drain in the Township of Delhi.
Before:
Vernon Spencer, Chair; Andrew Wright, Vice-Chair; Herbert Todgham, Vice-Chair; Russell Piper, Member.
Appearances:
Les & Irene Wawrow, John D. Hill, Doug Jenereaux, C. M. H. Churchill, and Hazel Atkinson, appellants.
Roger Marsden, Randy Van Den Heede, Don Lounsbury and Ernst Von Allwoerden, assessed landowners.
John Kuntze, P. Eng., on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Delhi.
Chris Thompson, drainage superintendent for the Township of Delhi.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
This appeal was heard Wednesday, August 18, 1999 and continued on Tuesday, August 24, 1999, in the Council Chambers, the Township of Delhi (the Township), Delhi, Ontario. Les and Irene Wawrow, John D. Hill and Robert J. Twyman appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal (the Tribunal) under Sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act (the Act) and Doug Jenereaux, Mac Churchill and Hazel Atkinson appealed to the Tribunal under Section 48 of the Act, from the decision of the Court of Revision and from the engineer’s report dated March 22, 1999 on the Harmony Road Drain in the Township of Delhi (the Township).
Betteanne Cadman, Clerk of the Township, performed the duties of the Clerk of the Tribunal.
Section 48 of the Act is as follows:
- (1) Any owner of land or any public utility affected by a drainage works, if dissatisfied with the report of the engineer on the grounds that,
(a) the benefits to be derived from the drainage works are not commensurate with the estimated cost thereof;
(b) the drainage works should be modified on grounds to be stated;
(c) the compensation or allowances provided by the engineer are inadequate or excessive;
(d) the engineer has reported that the drainage works is not required, or is impractical, or cannot be constructed under section 3,
may appeal to the Tribunal, and in every case a written notice of appeal shall be served within forty days after the mailing of the notice under section 40 or subsection 46(2), as the case may be.
Section 54 of the Act is as follows:
- (1) Any party to an appeal before the court of revision may appeal to the Tribunal by giving notice addressed to the clerk of the Tribunal, given to the clerk of the initiating municipality, from the decision of the court of revision or from its omission, neglect or refusal to hear or decide an appeal within twenty‑one days of the pronouncement of the decision of the court of revision or of any matter evidencing such omission, neglect or refusal.
(2) The clerk of the Tribunal shall give ten days notice to an appellant of the time and place of the hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal.
. (3) Every appeal shall be heard by the Tribunal by way of a new hearing and shall be disposed of by the Tribunal in such manner as it considers proper, and its decision is final.
R.S.O. 1990, chap. D17, s. 54.
Prior to the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order making parties to this hearing all landowners assessed or compensated in the March 22, 1999 engineer’s report of John Kuntze, P. Eng., for the Harmony Road Drain, Township of Delhi. Affidavit proof was filed with the Tribunal that all parties had been served with notice of this hearing.
The Background
On January 26, 1998 the Township of Delhi received a petition under Section 4 of the Drainage Act from Randy Van Den Heede Farms Inc. requesting improved drainage for the south part of Lot 9, Concession 11 (Windham). On February 23, 1998, council appointed K. Smart Associates to prepare a Preliminary Report under Section 10 of the Drainage Act. The Preliminary Report on the Van Den Heede petition was dated October 26, 1998 and was considered by Township council on November 30, 1998.
The Preliminary Report considered 3 possible outlet routes for the area requiring drainage on the Van Den Heede property:
West along Windham Road 12 to an existing watercourse (referred to as the Sullivan Award Drain) in Lot 10, Concession 12.
East along Windham Road 12 to an existing watercourse in Lot 8, Concession 11.
South to the John Pettit Drain at the Lot 9-10 line in Concession 12.
The Preliminary Report recommended the outlet route south to the John Pettit Drain and noted that the improvement required on the Sullivan Award Drain would require a separate petition. The Van Den Heede petition remained valid at the meeting to consider the Preliminary Report and council subsequently directed the engineer to prepare a final report on the Van Den Heede petition.
On December 7, 1998, the Township received a petition under Section 4 of the Drainage Act from Donald Lounsbury requesting improved drainage for part of Lot 10, Concession 11. Council subsequently directed that this petition be addressed in the report being prepared for the Van Den Heede petition.
The land within the watershed is flat with many depressional areas. Surface drainage within the watershed is achieved by the construction of ditches.
A further site meeting was conducted on February 18, 1999. As a result of the site meetings and site examinations, the areas requiring drainage were defined by the engineer as follows:
- East area requiring drainage
The east area is a low area subject to periodic flooding in the southwest corner of the Randy Van Den Heede Farms Inc. property in the southeast quarter of Lot 9 and part of the MacGregor lot in the southeast corner of the southwest quarter of Lot 9, Concession 11. This area currently has no outlet for surface or subsurface drainage. The petition for this area contains the signature of Randy Van Den Heede, president of the corporation, which represents more than the required 60% of the area requiring drainage. In the opinion of the engineer, the petition for the east area requiring drainage is thus adequate in accordance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Drainage Act.
- West Area Requiring Drainage
The west area is the low area which has been tile drained in the south part of the Lounsbury property in Lot 10, Concession 11 which currently has inadequate outlet for this tile drainage. The petition for this area contains the signature of Don Lounsbury, which represents all of the area requiring drainage. In the opinion of the engineer, the petition for the west area requiring drainage is thus adequate in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Drainage Act.
The objective of the engineer’s report is to provide an improved drainage outlet for the east area requiring drainage on the Van Den Heede Farms property and the west area requiring drainage on the Lounsbury property. This objective will be achieved by the following:
- East Area Requiring Drainage, South Part Lot 9, Concession 11
Construct a new ditch with outlet in the John Pettit Drain and continuing northerly along the Lot 9-10 line in Concession 12 to the south limits of the Marsen property (formerly Potts’ property). The new drain will then continue easterly and northerly as a tile drain on the Wawrow, Porteous, Von Allwoerden and Churchill properties in Lot 9, Concession 12 and across Windham Road 12 to the southwest corner of the Van Den Heede property. This drain is referred to as the East Branch.
- West Area Requiring Drainage, South Part Lot 10, Concession 11
The existing ditch from the south limits of the Lounsbury property south to the line between Atkinson and Smith will be improved along with a new outlet for the ditch into the new East Branch along the Smith-Atkinson property line. This drain is referred to as the West Branch. The existing ditch on the Smith property will be backfilled.
The new tile drain for the East Branch is designed for a 12mm (½”) Drainage Coefficient which will provide adequate outlet to control ground water levels in the east area requiring drainage and the affected watershed area illustrated on the plan.
The new ditch on the East and West Branches is recommended to be a trapezoidal cross-section with a 0.9m (3’) bottom and 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) bank slope except for north of Windham Road 12 where the bottom width is reduced to 0.6m with 1.5:1 bank slope due to the restricted working area along both banks. The new culvert sizes on the West Branch were selected to match the bottom width for the new channel.
The total length of drain work is 2233m (1503m closed, 730m open).
The total estimated cost of the work is $99,600.
The total drainage area affected is 276.7 hectares (684 acres).
The plan of the proposed new drainage works is attached to and forms part of this decision.
The Issue
There are two issues before the Tribunal:
Are the benefits to be derived from the drain commensurate with the cost?
Are the assessments as proposed in the March 22, 1999 engineer’s report and the Revised Assessment Schedule A. dated May 19, 1999, on the Harmony Road Drain, Township of Delhi as confirmed by the Court of Revision appropriate?
Preliminary Matter:
Subsequent to issuance of the engineer’s report Mr. Emre severed a lot that is now part of the watershed. The engineer for the project, John Kuntze, confirmed for the Tribunal that any changes in the revised assessment and maintenance schedules, A, B and C, dated May 19, 1999, affect only Mr. Emre’s assessment. Mr. Kuntze confirmed that the revised assessment and maintenance schedules were adopted by the Court of Revision.
The Evidence and the Findings
Leslaw Wawrow, appellant, told the Tribunal that:
He and his wife have owned this property for a number of years.
The property is composed of 116 acres, of which 90 acres are arable. The property is tenant-farmed.
Both the tenant farmer and the former owner of the property are reported to agree that the proposed drain will not improve the arable land.
They do not need the ditch as it will not provide a benefit to them nor will it increase of the value of their land.
In his opinion, the expenditure does not warrant the benefit that will be received by the landowners just to save 2.4 ha of land from periodic flooding.
He is concerned that the run-off water from the Van Den Heede property, where herbicides are used, will have a harmful effect on wildlife or fish life, especially in the wetland on the southwest corner of his property.
In his opinion, his assessed benefits are too high as the drain is of no benefit to him.
1996 was an unusually wet year.
He is concerned that building more ditches will turn his farmland into desert like conditions.
He does not feel sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant the building of the drain.
In his opinion, the project should be quashed.
If it is not possible to quash the project, he would like to be assessed in a fairer manner ie. same assessment as others who do not benefit from the drain.
John Hill, appellant, told the Tribunal that:
He has lived on his farm since 1958.
He and his brother farm between 500 and 600 acres in this area and grow mainly corn and soybeans.
None of the land he farms is tile drained and it does not need to be as it is sandy land.
In his opinion, the amount of moisture in the land has been the limiting factor to growing a crop.
He said the only water reserve he has left is on the northeast corner of his property. He does not want to see that little bit of reserve get drained away.
He is concerned that, if the water is not conserved, he will not have water in his well.
He wants to preserve wetlands, keep the trees and look after nature.
In his opinion, the drain would only be detrimental to him so he feels there should be no assessment against his property.
C. H. M. Churchill, appellant, told the Tribunal that:
He purchased the property 10 years ago and presently rents out the house.
Seven acres of the land are tenant-farmed.
He purchased the property as he likes the country, the birds and the trees.
He is concerned that the drain will drop the water table and that his well will go dry and that the trees will be ruined.
His assessment is too high as the drain will not be of any benefit to him nor will it mean he can increase the rent.
He has been frustrated as he has not been able to get answers to questions he had about the drain so he could make informed decisions.
He wants the project cancelled until the viability and economics of it are proven to the landowners.
He is concerned that all alternatives have not been considered and questioned whether a benefit cost analysis had been completed.
He feels he is being assessed for a drain that will be of no benefit to him and he resents not having a choice about paying for a drain even though he does not want it.
All property owners should have the choice of how to use their land. Most property owners in this watershed do not want to change the present use of their land. They want to practice good stewardship.
He can not rent his land for more money and he can not sever it.
Hazel Atkinson, appellant, said that:
She and her late husband purchased the property 24 years ago.
There is low area on her property out towards the road on the east side.
In her opinion, neither of the proposed drains will drain that area.
Her tenant-farmer also agrees that the drain will not benefit her land.
She will not receive any benefit from the drain so does not feel she should have any assessment.
She would like to see the project cancelled.
Robert Twyman, appellant, was not in attendance nor did he send a representative to present any evidence.
Roger J. Marsden, assessed landowner, told the Tribunal that:
He just recently purchased the Pott’s property ( in Lot 9, Con. 12) and he is aware of the proposed drainage works.
That property has been owned by his family for 100 years.
The property has a high water table, is all woodlot and he wants it kept that way.
In wet years, the woodlot does get quite wet.
He is in support of the drain and feels that the assessment to the property could be offset by the increased value of having the property drained.
Ernst Von Allwoerden, assessed landowner, told the Tribunal that:
He purchased his property in 1994.
Water used to sit on the ground in the spring. In 1997, he dug a pond, about 18 ft. deep so the water could drain off his land to the pond. This solved his excess water problem.
If Mr. Van Den Heede has only 6 or 10 acres to drain it would be a lot less expensive to dig a pond.
Chris Thompson, Drainage Superintendent for the Township, told the Tribunal that:
− In the past seven years the Township has received complaints from residents in the watershed saying they had water in their basement.
− In his opinion the sandy soil in this area supports and holds a high water table.
− Despite the Township being in the sand plains, drainage is common to the area.
− 60% to 80% of properties in the Township are assessed on municipal or award drains.
− Randy Van Den Heede and Mr. MacGregor came to him to look at ways of solving their excess water problems.
− In June 1996 he had a meeting with landowners in this area. They considered the possibility of building a pond but, in his opinion, if there is no outlet, the pond would not be of any benefit.
− Since Mr. Van Den Heede did not have an outlet he petitioned for a drain.
Randy Van den Heede, assessed landowner, told the Tribunal that:
He is the third generation of his family to farm this property.
His final acreage report from AGRICORP, which he submitted into evidence, indicates his yearly production average.
Each year when the water table was high his tobacco production decreased 400 lb. to 700 lb. per acre.
When the water table is high, he also has to deal with equipment damage when mud gets caked on his equipment. He introduced into evidence pictures, taken in 1996, of wet spots on his farm.
In 1996, he hired an engineer who made him a topographical map of his property showing where the low spots are. The engineer’s recommendation was that he tile ten acres on the northwest portion of his property as well as a further 50 acres for which he has no outlet. The map indicates that about one-half of the 50 acres is made up of low areas requiring drainage.
He tiled the ten acres and it has made a significant difference to crop yields in that field. That demonstrates to him what can be done if he has an outlet for the 50 acres.
Since he has no outlet for the 50 acres he petitioned for this drain.
In response to questions of the Tribunal, Mr. Van den Heede said the tiles in the ten acres were installed in July 1996. At that time there was no water laying on top of the land, however the tiles starting running 20 minutes after being installed and kept running until September. In his opinion, digging a pond in the corner of his property would not solve his problem since, as soon as the pond was full, it would overflow.
In response to questions from assessed landowners, he said it is not just six acres that he will be draining but the whole 50 acres. He estimates that by tiling the 50 acres his increased tobacco production will increase his income by a minimum of $10,000 a year. He also said it is his opinion that the construction will not lower the water level in the pond on his 50 acres. He said when he tiled the north ten acres there was a pond about 700 feet away and he saw no impact.
Don Lounsbury, assessed property owner, told the Tribunal that:
He has owned his property since the fall of 1990.
He has a tenant farmer who grows rye, ginseng, corn and soybeans.
He is still paying for some tile drains that were installed on his property in 1988.
His present drains are not working properly and his property is wet.
In 1995 he inquired about getting the Sullivan Award Drain cleaned but it was not a drain recognized by the Township. He talked with other landowners who were affected by the drain. The opinion at that time was that they wanted it cleaned but nobody wanted to pay. Since he didn’t have permission from all the landowners to clean the drain himself, the cleanout did not proceed.
1995 and 1996 were extremely wet years and hardly any crop was planted on his property.
When Mr. Van Den Heede filed his petition, one of the three options being considered was to come down Wyndham Rd. 12 and tie into the Sullivan Award Drain. That option would have relieved a lot of the water problems on his property. However, the engineer recommended a drainage works that did not include the Sullivan Award Drain.
In December 1998, he filed a petition to have the Sullivan Award Drain made an official drain so that he had an outlet for his tile drains.
John Kuntze, P. Eng., appeared on behalf of the Township. He told the Tribunal that in his opinion, there are two issues for the Tribunal to deal with:
Should the project go ahead?, and
Has the cost of the project been apportioned properly?
In his opinion, the project should proceed. He said this is one of the prime agricultural areas in Ontario. The petitioners are attempting to protect their farmland and increase their production. He told the Tribunal that this watershed is made up mainly of Granby Soils as well as some Walsingham Soils. He introduced into evidence a description of these types of soils which indicate they are poorly drained, rapidly permeable and that they tend to retain high watertable levels. Thus these types of soil are best when artificially drained. He said this area has had two relatively dry years so the present water table is low. There is very little evidence of surface erosion except where there are larger depression areas.
In his opinion, all of the properties in the watershed will benefit from the drain. The potential is there for all of the lands to make use of the drain, however, some may choose not to do so. This drain will provide a much needed level of service to what is primarily agricultural land. Some of the landowners in this watershed have purchased a parcel of property in the country and do not choose to farm that property. The appellants are entitled to own land and not drain it. However, in the future, the property owner may require drainage and will be able to tap into the drain.
Mr. Kuntze said the east drain serves 47 ha. or 116 acres and at least one-half is productive land that would or could benefit immediately. The cost of the east branch of the drain is $51,600 or $1,098 per hectare ($445/acre). The cost of the west branch of the drain, to the landowners, is $27,2440 for 521 acres or $131 per hectare ($53/acre). He said that, in his opinion, the cost per hectare can easily be recouped in increased production and land value.
He said that drainage of this agricultural land will actually increase the drought resistance of a crop.
In response to questions of the Tribunal, he said he did not investigate putting in a pond to solve the water problem as there would still be a need to control the water level in the pond. To control the water level the appellant would need an outlet which he does not have.
The Act requires that the total estimated cost be assessed to the affected lands and roads. For this project he assessed for benefit, outlet liability and special assessments. Schedule A of the engineer’s report shows in detail the approximate hectares affected, amount assessed to each landowner for benefit and outlet for the East and West Branches. A detailed explanation of how the assessments were arrived at is contained in the engineer’s report. He said that, in his opinion, this drain is to control groundwater only so no adjustment was made for wooded areas as all of the lands would potentially contribute the same amount of water to the drain.
In his explanation as to how he assessed costs, he told the Tribunal that 50% of the cost of the drain he recognizes as immediate benefit to the property - ability to carry subsurface water, conveying water through property in controlled manner - so the property on which the drain is built gains immediate benefit.
He said benefit assessments done by the engineer are subjective. His general rule of thumb is a 50/50 split for benefit and outlet. In this particular instance all of lands are subject to the same condition. The ground water table rises and when it does all of the landowners need an outlet. All of lands, whether currently agricultural or woodlot, he treated equally. The amount assessed as outlet liability he based on the position of the property relative to the outlet of the drain. If the property is at the top of the drain and uses the full length of the drain then the outlet liability is higher. In his opinion, the only way that outlet liability can be altered is to make a corresponding change in the benefit assessment.
In response to questions of the Tribunal as to how he arrived at the assessments used, Mr. Kuntze said it is based partly on the cost to construct the drain itself. He used a dollar value per metre in most cases to illustrate that properties are being treated equitably. It also shows that his calculation of benefit assessment for each property is related to the physical length of the drain on the property. By using a rate per meter assessment it becomes very apparent that benefit assessments are similar.
In response to appellants’ comments that they would not receive a benefit from the drain he stated that:
The type of land on the Wawrow property does benefit from drainage. Even though the current landowners may not choose to take full advantage of the drain, the assessment is against the parcel of land and the potential that exists.
The drain on the Wawrow property is butt joint concrete tile. The joints are wrapped with filter cloth so the water can get into the drain but the sand cannot.
In response to Mr. Wawrow’s concerns about effect of water run-off from fields where pesticides are used he said he is not aware of any evidence that application of herbicides or pesticides is creating a problem in downstream watercourses.
Drainage will not make things worse than they are today. Normally there is a positive impact in that there is reduced erosion.
The Churchill property will also benefit in that it will have access to an outlet. Mr. Churchill has stated that he does not intend to change the use of his land. The drain is going to be there for a long time and capable of providing a service to that land if a future landowner wishes to take advantage of it.
− Mr. Von Allwoerden has not experienced a wet year since putting in his pond. When the pond is full it will overflow as it does not have an outlet. Having access to an outlet is a benefit to Mr. Von Allwoerden.
− In his opinion, the ditch on the Atkinson property is necessary and it will provide a level of drainage improvement as it will serve the east side of the property. A future owner of the Atkinson property could dump into the open ditch at Station 238 and have a direct outlet.
- The remaining three appellants are on the fringe of the watershed and as such are only assessed outlet liability.
In response to questions from Mr. Churchill he stated that:
He had surveyed the landowners for their ideas and input. There were at least four meetings, a preliminary report and a final report.
The conservation authority was sent notices of the meetings about these drains as well as copies of the engineer’s reports but they did not express any concerns either to him verbally or in writing to the Clerk.
The Findings
The Tribunal notes that the area requiring drainage, as described by the engineer in the report, is necessary to determine the validity of the petition. However, when reviewing the question of the benefit of the work compared to the cost, the area that receives benefit from the work normally is larger than the area described for the purposes of petition and is usually most of the land that is within the watershed being drained. Amongst the appellants there was confusion about the relationship between the area requiring drainage and the area to be considered in the cost benefit analysis contemplated by Section 48. The Tribunal also notes that for the purposes of a Section 48 Cost vs. Benefit analysis, the definition of benefit as found in Section 1 of the Act does not apply; this definition of benefit relates to assessment considerations. The use of the word benefit in Section 48 has the more encompassing meaning relating to the total anticipated advantage to be derived from the work vs. the estimated cost of the proposal. It is in this light that the Tribunal reviews evidence and makes its decision. The Tribunal hopes that this clarification will be of assistance for the appellants in this case and for future reference.
The evidence presented was that landowners were given notice of site meetings and meetings to consider the reports and thus had opportunity for input into the design of the drain. Without this drain, the petitioners would not have an outlet to drain their property. The engineer evaluated different alternatives and recommended what in his opinion is a cost-effective and efficient drain. The proposed project appears to the Tribunal to be well designed and should accomplish its intended purposes, which are very clearly explained in the report. The Tribunal realizes that it is not always easy for assessed landowners, who choose not to take full advantage of the drain, to appreciate the full benefit of the drain to the watershed. The Tribunal considered the evidence and was convinced that the advantages of this drainage works to the watershed outweigh the cost of the project and thus the project should be allowed to proceed. On this basis all appeals under Section 48 are denied.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the purpose of constructing the East and West branch is to provide outlet for upstream lands as opposed to providing a direct benefit to the adjacent lands. The division between outlet and benefit is a judgment decision and the final result depends on the judgement of the engineer. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the benefit:outlet ratio on this project is fair and reasonable. Mr. Kuntze assessed the cost of the drain primarily as outlet to the petitioners and as benefit to the adjacent owners. Outlet liability was distributed through the watershed. The engineer is correct in his conclusion that the residential lots will benefit from the proposed work and should be assessed their fair portion of the benefit assessment.
The Tribunal noted that all of the Wawrow property within the watershed is within 170 metres of the drain while some of the Van Den Heede property is as much as 700 meters away. This is an advantage to the Wawrow property should the owner decide to tile drain as he will not incur the expense of a main drain ie. it will cost him less to tile drain his property than Mr. Van Den Heede. If Mr. Wawrow chose to connect into the Pettit Drain he would incur the additional cost to construct a main drain. While the Tribunal has some sympathy for those landowners who choose not to drain and/or take advantage of a drain, that is a choice they make. When assessing property under the Act it is the advantage to the property that has to be considered not necessarily the intentions of the current owner.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the engineer was consistent, fair and provided a rational explanation of how he arrived at the assessments. The Tribunal compliments Mr. Kuntze on his work and the detail he provided in his report. The Tribunal might have approached the assessments marginally differently but the result would be very similar. Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it ought not to interfere with the judgement of the engineer. The Tribunal accepts the assessments as proposed. Therefore the appeals under Section 54 are dismissed.
Mr. Twyman filed an appeal but failed to present evidence in support of his appeal. If he was unable to follow through with his appeal, he should have notified his municipal office. If this had been the only appeal filed causing a hearing, Mr. Twyman would have been assessed costs. In the future, if an appellant fails to appear or provide any evidence in support of his/her appeal, the panel will consider awarding costs against that appellant.
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
After careful consideration of the evidence filed and the submissions made, the Tribunal orders:
The appeals of Doug Jeneveaux, M. Churchill and Hazel Atkinson under Section 48 of the Act are dismissed.
The appeals of Les and Irene Wawrow, John D. Hill and Robert J. Twyman under Sections 48 and 54 of the Act are dismissed.
The non-administrative costs of the Township in respect to this appeal shall form part of the cost of the drainage works and it is ordered that there be no other order as to costs and all parties are responsible for their own costs. Attention is drawn to Section 73 of the Act.
The reasons for this decision are:
The Tribunal was convinced by the evidence presented that the benefit that will be received from this drain is commensurate with the cost.
The Tribunal was convinced by the evidence that the assessments for this project are fair and reasonable considering all of the circumstances of the project.
Dated at Chatsworth, Ontario this 9th, day of September, 1999.