Seguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain (Re), 2000 ONAFRAAT 1

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:

Seguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain Township of Champlain

Seguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain (RE) 2000 ONAFRAAT 1

STATUTE:

Drainage Act

HEARING:

December 15-16, 1999

DATE OF DECISION:

January 6, 2000

2000-01

NEUTRAL CITATION:

2000 ONAFRAAT 1

Seguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain Township of Champlain

IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED.

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

An appeal to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal by the Town of Hawkesbury under Section 50(2) of the Drainage Act (the Act) and by the United Counties of Prescott & Russell, 483038 Ontario Inc., Richard Dupuis and 104284 Canada Lteé under Section 48 of the Act and by 104284 Canada Lteé under Section 54 of the Act from the June 14^th, 1999 report of Kiama Engineering Inc. on the Séguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain, Township of Champlain.

Before:

John Taylor, Vice-Chair; Herb Todgham, Vice-Chair; Gertrude Levac, Member.

Appearances:

Richard Dupuis, appellant.

Wayne Assaly, on behalf of 104284 Canada Lteé, appellant.

André Desjardins, P. Eng., on behalf of 483038 Ontario Inc., appellant.

Marc Clermont, P. Eng., Director of Public Works on behalf of the Counties of Prescott and Russell, appellant.

Martin Bonhomme, P. Eng., CAO and Town Engineer, on behalf of the Town of Hawkesbury, appellant.

Armand Brunet, assessed owner.

Leo Tremblay, P. Eng., on behalf of the respondent, the Township of Champlain.

Michael St. Jean, Drainage Superintendent for the respondent, the Township of Champlain.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

This appeal was heard in the council chambers of the Township of Champlain (the Township) near Vankleek Hill, Ontario commencing on December 15, 1999 and continuing on December 16, 1999. The Town of Hawkesbury (the Town), the United Counties of Prescott & Russell (the Counties), 483038 Ontario Inc., Richard Dupuis and 104284 Canada Lteé appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal (the Tribunal) under Sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act (the Act) from the decision of the Court of Revision and from the June 14^th, 1999 report of Kiama Engineering Inc. on the Séguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain, Township of Champlain.

Robert Lefebvre, Clerk of the Township of Champlain, performed the duties of the Clerk of the Tribunal.

Prior to the beginning of the hearing, the Tribunal issued an order making all landowners assessed or compensated in the June 14^th, 1999 report of Kiama Engineering Inc. on the Séguin/East Boundary Municipal Drain, Township of Champlain, parties to this hearing. Affidavit proof was filed with the Tribunal that all parties have been served with notice of this hearing.

The Background

County Road 4 (Road 4) runs in a generally east west direction through the Town following the route of the Ottawa River at varying distances from the top of the south river bank. In some locations there is sufficient land between Road 4 and the river that houses have been built on the north side of the road. The Séguin Drain Branch No. 1 starts at the lot line between lot 3 and lot 4 Broken Front Concession (BFC) in the Township approximately 75 m south of Road 4 and runs in a westerly direction about one sixth of the way across lot 4 where it joins the Séguin Main Branch. The Main Branch Drain runs northerly in lot 4, across Road 4 in a northeasterly direction and then northerly to the Ottawa River. An unnamed branch, which is referred to in this decision as the Western Branch, of the Séguin Drain commences in the west part of Lot 4 at about one third of the width of lot 4 from the line between lot 4 and lot 5, approximately 100 m south of Road 4, and runs in an north easterly direction to the back of the lots that face Road 4 and then easterly along the back lot line to the Séguin Main Drain. The Séguin Drain was constructed under petition about 12 years ago.

The present work began as a project to improve the outlet of the Séguin Drain. The decision was made to provide a new outlet for the major portion of the watershed by blocking the Western Branch of the Séguin Drain at the point where it intersected the back lot line of the lots that face onto Road 4 and diverting that portion of the watershed straight north to the Ottawa River through a new crossing under Road 4. The existing outlet was deemed sufficient for the balance of the watershed. When this proposal was presented the Engineer for the Town petitioned for a southern extension of the diversion drain along the boundary line between the Town and the Township to connect with existing drainage works from the Hawkesbury Industrial Park near Aberdeen Street – see attached plan.

The report proposes the construction of a new drain called the East Boundary Municipal Drain that runs along the east side of the boundary between the Town and the Township in a northerly direction to an outlet into the Ottawa River. It also provides for blocking off the Western Branch of the Séguin Drain in the Township near the boundary line with the Town. That portion of the Séguin Drain in the Town is abandoned.

The drain commences at Station 0+542 opposite the centerline of Aberdeen Street and runs north to station 0+282 at the north boundary of lands owned by 483038 Ontario Inc. (André Desjardins) and from there straight north through property owned by 303041 Ontario Ltd. (Wayne Assaly) for a distance before turning north east to Station 0+139 at the back lot line of property Roll Number 010-001-180 00 (Anita Coderre), from there it runs in a northerly direction to the south boundary of Road 4, thence in a north westerly direction across Road 4 and across the lands of Richard Dupuis to Station 0+000 on the south bank of the Ottawa River. The outlet is 63 m north of the centerline of Road 4 at the Ottawa River.

The estimated cost of the work is $137,000 not including the cost of crossing Road 4.

$105,231 is assessed as outlet liability with the remaining $31,769 assessed as benefit. The cost of crossing Road 4 is shared equally between the Counties and the Town. The watershed affected by the work is 133.52 hectares.

The Issues

The issues before the Tribunal are:

1. Are the assessments as proposed in the engineer’s report and modified by the Court of Revision, appropriate?

2. Are the allowances used in the report for land taken for construction of the ditch and for damages to lands and crops appropriate?

3. Should the alignment of the drain be modified?

The Evidence and the Findings

Mr. Richard Dupuis told the Tribunal that he owns the property where the proposed outlet is to be constructed. He has two concerns. First, the drain should be taken to the original Séguin Drain outlet. If this happens his property will not be affected. If the proposal remains as shown in the report then he wants his allowance for land used increased to $10,000, that is, 1/3 of the municipal assessment on the lot. He told the Tribunal that he purchased this lot May 19, 1998. At that time there was a small house on the lot. He has since demolished the house and had the property re-assessed by the municipality. The re-assessed value is $30,000. The lot has an existing well and tile bed and so could be built on as it now stands. The drain, he said, would diminish the sale value of the lot and he should be paid for this devaluation.

Mr. Martin Bonhomme, P. Eng., CEO and Engineer for the Town, told the Tribunal his only concern with the project as proposed was that the report required the Town to pay half of the cost of crossing Road 4 which is a road under jurisdiction of the Counties. He said that the first two reports on the Séguin Drain specified that the cost of the Road 4 culvert would be charged to the Counties. On this basis, he signed the petition to create the East Boundary Drain from Station 0+167 to Aberdeen Street. Without this extension to the drain the proposed new outlet of the Séguin Drain would be useless to the Town as there is no way for the water from the upper watershed to quickly get to the new outlet unless this portion of channel is constructed. He noted that lands in the Town are paying 70% of the cost of the East Boundary Drain. He said this is a fair share of the cost of the work.

Mr. Marc Clermont, P. Eng., Director of Public Works for the Counties, told the Tribunal that the Counties have jurisdiction over Road 4 at the point where the drain crosses the road. He said the Counties agree that there is a need to find an outlet for the Town industrial park storm water. The Counties’ appeal is on how the work is to be done. He said that the Counties see this area as a built up area that eventually will be serviced with storm drains and therefore a trunk sewer should be installed now rather than later. He asked the Tribunal to find that the work should be constructed as a trunk storm sewer under Section 53 of the Water Resources Act. He said the purpose of the work is to provide an outlet for drainage problems originating in the Town. The cost of the road crossing would not be an issue if the Tribunal accepted this argument.

Mr. Clermont argued that if the Tribunal decides to proceed under the Drainage Act, the cost of the crossing under Road 4 should be charged as part of the cost of the work and assessed to the watershed. He pointed out that the Counties have already paid for a culvert for the Séguin Drain and should not have to pay for a second outlet. He also pointed out that the other road crossings – the future extension of Landsdowne Street – is charged as part of the cost of the work and not as a charge to the Town roads.

In response to questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Clermont agreed that the Counties do not have the authority to tell the Town how to provide drainage for the lands in the Town but the Counties are affected by assessment depending on which method the Town selects.

Mr. Armand Brunet, an assessed, owner told the Tribunal that he owns the property to the east of where the proposed drain crosses Road 4. The property is 100 foot frontage on Road 4 by 200 feet in depth. None of the proposed work is on his land. He has owned the property for 46 years. He said that his preference was to lower the existing road crossing and the outfall of the Séguin Drain and wait and see if that solves the problem. He said that there is a small ponding area just upstream of Road 4. If the culvert and outfall was lower there is sufficient fall on the land that the drainage problems would be solved at much less cost.

Mr. Brunet said if the drain goes ahead as proposed, the proposed pipe enclosure on the Coderre/Assaly property (immediately south of Road 4) should be extended to the back of the Coderre lot, not just the first 100 feet from the road. He said there is no place in a built up area for an open ditch. This drain should be covered. If the drain is covered through the existing lot fronting on the road, then as the watershed upstream from there is developed, the developer could be required to cover the drain as development takes place. He said he is also concerned about leachate from the Coderre septic system getting into the drain. A pipe drain would make it more difficult for leachate to migrate into the drain.

Mr. Wayne Assaly spoke on behalf of 104284 Canada Lteé which owns 303041 Ontario Ltd.. This company owns the land on both sides of the East Boundary Drain from Station 0+139 to Station 0+250 and on the east side from there to Station 0+282. It also owns the 200 foot by 50 foot strip lying between the Coderre and Brunet properties and running from Road 4 to Station 0+139. The proposed East Boundary Drain passes through this 50 foot strip, partly on the lands of 104284 Canada Lteé and partly on the Coderre property. The land from Station 0+282 to Station 0+139 we will refer to as the Assaly lands. The narrow 50’ x 200’ lot from Station 0+139 to Road 4 we will refer to as the 50 foot lot.

Mr. Assaly argued that his assessment is too high. He said that the Town has allowed development in the upper watershed without proper control of the water and therefore the Town should be paying all of the cost of the project. He said, as the report now stands, he is asked to pay for the Town’s past negligence. He said that the Town has allowed development in the industrial park without regard for the recommendations in the Levac water management report. He said that the natural flow of the water is not toward his land but to the east along the route of the existing Séguin Drain. The proposed East Boundary Drain cuts across the Assaly land. On the 50-foot lot, the proposal takes up so much of the width of the lot, that it eliminates the possibility of an entrance onto Road 4 or a separated lot.

Mr. Assaly said that the drain on the 50 foot lot would take about 30 feet of the width and leave him with a strip of land that is useless. He argued that he should be provided an allowance for the entire area of this 50 foot lot at the rate of $2 per square foot, which is less than the rate allowed to Mr. Dupuis, the next downstream owner. This would provide him an allowance of $22,000 for this lot and he would deed the lot to the Township on the condition that his assessment not be increased. He pointed out that this rate was not excessive as the Town has been paying $7.25 per square foot for land that it is expropriating. He also argued that taking the lot and placing the entire drain on that lot moves the outlet away from the Coderre septic bed and could also eliminate the need for the 100 foot long pipe section adjacent to Road 4, thus reducing the cost of the project.

He said that on the Assaly property, Station 0+139 to Station 0+250 the allowance for land taken is too small. He requested an increase to $2 per square foot for this land as well. The drain is taking a swath 364 feet long by 30 feet wide through this land. By taking this route rather than the natural flow to the east, the drain is much shorter and the upstream property owners save money. He asked for an allowance of $21,840 for land used in this section of the drain provided his assessment does not change.

For the land from Station 0+282 to Station 0+250, abutting the subdivision lot on the north side of Landsdowne Street, could in future, be a lot developed fronting on a future extension of Landsdowne Street but not after the drain is installed. He asked the Tribunal for an allowance of $10,000 for the land used in this section of the drain, provided his assessment does not change.

Mr. Assaly also said he was assessed too much for the culvert over the East Boundary Drain. The report requires a culvert near Station 0+200 to re-connect the two parts of his land severed by the drain. The culvert cost is estimated at $6,000 and is only required because the upstream owners are getting a shorter drain than would be required to follow the natural flow of the water. This cost should be charged upstream.

In summary, Mr. Assaly told the Tribunal that:

1. He accepts the project as the best solution to the water problem in the area.

2. The natural flow was diverted by Mr. Desjardins to accommodate his development west of Christine Street. Now the natural flow is being diverted north along the municipal boundary injuring his property.

3. He wants $22,000 in allowances for land taken on the 50 foot lot.

4. He wants $21,840 in allowances for land taken for the section of drain from Station 0+139 to Station 0+250.

5. He wants $10,000 in allowances for land taken for the section of drain from Station 0+282 to Station 0+250.

6. He wants his assessment for the culvert near Station 0+200 to be reduced.

7. He wants his assessment for the project to be no higher than shown in the report.

Mr. André Desjardins, spoke on behalf of 483038 Ontario Inc., an assessed owner. He said that he does not object to the work as proposed but objects to the assessment. He argued that the East Boundary Drain was petitioned by the Town road authority for proper drainage of the roads, so the roads should be assessed for benefit but are not. He said that the Town had dumped the water from 316 acres into the Séguin Drain and so should be charged benefit or injuring liability on the East Boundary Drain to pay for the outlet necessary to dispose of this water. He suggested that his assessment be lowered and the cost on the upstream lands in the Town be increased.

He pointed out that the land that will eventually become the extension of Landsdowne Street is owned by 483038 Ontario Inc. and no allowance has been provided for the land used to construct the drain on this piece of property. He said, based on the allowances given to Mr. Assaly in the report, he should be paid $1,578.01 for this land ($78.43 per meter x 21.2 m). He also argued that he should be paid for damages on this strip of land at the same rate as other owners or $15 per meter for an allowance for damages of $318.01.

Mr. Desjardins also complained that the cost of the culvert crossing his land is estimated at $8,000 and he is assessed 50%, or $4,000, of this cost. He requested that the division in the cost of this culvert be made on an acreage basis and, on that basis, his assessment should be lowered to $500 and the balance charged to the upstream lands.

In response to questions from the Tribunal, Mr. Desjardins agreed that the slope of the land is steep half way between Aberdeen and Landsdowne Streets, so much of the water reaching the culverts on his land would get there naturally. He agreed that a division of the culvert cost based solely on acreage is not appropriate in these circumstances.

In response to Mr. Dupuis’ concerns, Mr. Tremblay told the Tribunal that the lot is about 15,000 square feet in area. The registry office documents indicate that Mr. Dupuis purchased the lot for $26,000. The drain will cross the lot near the west boundary and it will sever a small triangular shaped point of land. The total area of the drain and the severed portion of the lot is 2500 square feet. Mr. Tremblay said he calculated the per square foot value of the land from the purchase price and then rounded up to $2 per square foot because of the small portion of land affected. That is, the basis of the land allowance to Mr. Dupuis is $2/ square foot x 2500 square feet equals $5,000 for the land taken.

In response to the concerns of Mr. Bonhomme and Mr. Clermont, Mr. Tremblay told the Tribunal that he was trying to work a compromise on the cost of the crossing of Road 4. He said that under Section 26 of the Act, the cost of the road crossing must be charged to the road authority. Nevertheless, when he prepared the final report he felt it would be fair if he divided the cost 50:50 between the two. However, since the Town appealed the assessment, he recommended to the Tribunal that Section 26 of the Act be applied and the cost of the road crossing be charged to the Counties as the Counties have responsibility for the road at the point where the crossing is being installed.

Considering the suggestion that the project should be constructed under the Water Resources Act, Mr. Tremblay said that he started the project as an improvement to the Séguin Drain –a drainage works that already exists under the Drainage Act. The East Boundary Drain grew out of the discussion on how to handle the Town water while also dealing with the Séguin Drain outlet problems. At this stage of the work, it seems appropriate to continue under the Drainage Act.

In response to Mr. Brunet, Mr. Tremblay told the Tribunal that Mr. Brunet is asking for a covered drain to be placed on someone else’s property and that owner has not requested a covered drain, nor has the owner agreed to accept the increased cost of such work. He said that, enclosing this part of the drain would be very expensive and as much as possible, this project should remain as an open drain.

With respect to the 50 foot lot, Mr. Tremblay recommended that the Tribunal order:

• an increase in the allowances to the $22,000 requested by Mr. Assaly, although this is high

• the relocation of the drain entirely onto the 50 foot lot, south of Road 4, and

• the elimination the 100 foot long culvert on the property south of Road 4.

Mr. Tremblay explained to the Tribunal that, on the 50 foot lot, for allowances for land taken, he used a figure of $1 per square foot and an area of 189 square meters (a triangle shape) for a total of $1900. On the Assaly property (Station 0+139 to Station 0+282) he used a 10m wide strip 141m long for a total of $14,100. The total allowance for land to Mr. Assaly is therefore $16,000.

He still thinks this is adequate compensation for the land taken. He noted that the value of the land would be increased if the owners had already invested in servicing for subdivision lots but this is still raw land with only a potential to be developed sometime in the future.

Mr. Tremblay said he used a figure of $15 per meter for damages to land and crops throughout the length of the drain.

In response to Mr. Desjardins’ concerns, Mr. Tremblay said that the property was assessed benefit on the basis that if this work is not completed as a project under the Act then similar works will be expected of Mr. Desjardins through the land development procedure. The proposed work will increase the value of his land and it is therefore of benefit to him to have the project completed under the Act. His assessment is not out of proportion to the benefits his land receives. The allowance for land used was calculated at a rate of $1 per square foot as it was for Mr. Assaly’s land. This figure seems reasonable when compared to recent land purchases in the watershed which were around $0.70 per square foot for blocks of land. Increasing the rate slightly to account for the small area of land that is affected by the work seems appropriate. He said that Mr. Desjardins is correct in that he was not allowed any compensation for the land taken across the stretch of drain that will eventually be the extension of Landsdowne Street (Station 0+282 to Station 0+300). He agreed that Mr. Desjardins should be paid the sum of $1,578 in allowances for this strip. Mr. Tremblay said that he had been advised that this land was already owned by the Town and that is why he did not provide an allowance for it to Mr. Desjardins in the report.

Responding to the issue of allowances for damages, Mr. Tremblay told the Tribunal that the section of drain from Station 0+542 through Station 0+282 had been included in his original calculations of damage allowances. He recommended no change in the Desjardins damage allowances.

The cost of the culverts that are being installed for the Desjardins property is divided on a 50:50 basis. These culverts are long enough to provide an adequate road platform for the future development of this land. He said that 50% of the cost is a reasonable assessment for this work and should be approved by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and submissions of the appellants. Taking the properties in order from the outlet (Mr. Dupuis) through to the head of the drain (Mr. Desjardins) the Tribunal decided that:

• Basing the allowances to Mr. Dupuis on the value of land as shown in the recent registered transfer documents is a reasonable approach in the circumstances of this project. The allowance set out in the report will be confirmed by the Tribunal.

• The alignment of the drain on the Dupuis property will be affected by the decision of the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal will direct that the exact location of the work on the Dupuis property will be established by the engineer in consultation with Mr. Dupuis prior to construction commencing.

• The Tribunal understands Mr. Tremblay’s attempt to establish a compromise with the division of the cost of crossing Road 4. However, Section 26 of the Act clearly states that the road authority, having jurisdiction at the point of crossing, is to be charged the increase in the cost of the work caused by the existence of the road. In this case, the Counties will be charged the increase in the cost of the work.

• The Tribunal accepts the recommendation of Mr. Tremblay that the drain be relocated entirely onto the west part of the 50 foot Assaly lot immediately south of Road 4 and the 100 feet of culvert upstream of Road 4 be deleted from the work. However, the Tribunal feels that the allowance for land, can be only for the land actually used in the construction of the drain – not for the entire lot.

• Because the Tribunal has decided that the part of the drain immediately south of Road 4 is to be relocated from the Coderre lands onto the 50 foot lot owned by 303041 Ontario Ltd. (Assaly) and the 100 feet of culvert proposed to be installed in the section is to be deleted, there will no longer be any need to pay allowances to Ms. Coderre for land used for the project or for land damages; furthermore, the $1000 assessed against the Coderre property for benefit liability flowing from the enclosure of the drain in the culvert on this property will no longer be appropriate.

• Moving the drain onto the 50 foot lot will result in moving the point of entry of the crossing under Road 4, but it is not to move the point of exit of the crossing under Road 4 even though this will somewhat increase the angle and length of the road crossing. Moving the drain easterly will also provide more separation between the drain and the Coderre septic bed reducing the possibly of leachate from the tile bed getting into the drainage water.

• The Tribunal understands Mr. Brunet’s desire to have the work piped throughout but is of the opinion that the cost cannot be justified with the current level of land development.

• The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Tremblay that the allowances for land taken for the drain from Station 0+139 to the head of the drain at Station 0+542 based on a value of $1 per square foot is reasonable in the circumstances, even though it is high for undeveloped land. The allowances will be confirmed using this rate of compensation.

• Mr. Desjardins suggested that $6,400 was a better estimate for the cost of constructing the culverts on his land. Mr. Tremblay has estimated this at $8,000 and assessed the cost according to his estimate. Both estimates have been provided by professional engineers with experience in estimating the cost of this type of work. The difference in the estimate is small. To be fair to all parties assessed, the Tribunal feels it should not adjust one part of the cost estimate without reviewing, in detail, all aspects of the cost estimate. This detailed evidence was not provided. The Tribunal decided not to interfere with the judgment of Mr. Tremblay on this issue.

• The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Tremblay that the lands owned by 483038 Ontario Inc. (André Desjardins) will benefit from the proposed work and the assessment against theses lands is fair.

• The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Desjardins that the Town road authority petitioned for the East Boundary Drain because an outlet is required for the drainage of its roads and the Tribunal is satisfied that the roads will benefit from the impoved drainage that will be provided by the East Boundary Drain. The Town (Roads) should therefore be assessed $1000 for Benefit in addition to its Outlet Assessment of $10,549.78 as set out in the Schedule of Assessment.

The effects of these decisions of the Tribunal are that:

1. There is no change in the total cost of the project.

2. The point of exit of the culvert under Road 4 remains the same.

3. The point of entry of the Road 4 culvert is shifted to the east to a point opposite the western half of the 50 foot lot.

4. The drain immediately south of Road 4 is relocated from the Coderre property to the 50 foot lot and the allowance and assessment adjusted accordingly.

5. The 100 feet of pipe to the south of Road 4 is deleted from the work so the drain remains as an open drain except for the crossing of the Road 4, and the culverts on the Assaly and Desjardins properties.

6. The allowances are adjusted among the owners with the increase in the allowance to Mr. Assaly on the 50 foot lot offset by the reduction in the cost of construction and allowances resulting from the elimination of the 100 feet of pipe south of Road 4.

For quite some time now, the Tribunal has been encouraging the drainage engineers to provide more detail in their reports so that all those who deal with the reports (owners, their advisors, municipal officials, and the Tribunal for example) will be better able to understand exactly what is proposed to be done, how much the various items are expected to cost, how the Allowances have been calculated and how the Assessments have been determined. The members of the Tribunal are therefore greatly disappointed that in preparing this report on the Séguin /East Boundary Drain, Mr. Tremblay has not seen fit to do this. He has not shown for instance the rates per hectare nor the areas used in calculating the Allowances or the Assessments. The Tribunal believes that the owners require all of this information when they try to evaluate the proposed work. Although the Tribunal has decided not to order the report to be amended to incorporate these details, it feels that it has a duty to point out that they should have been included.

ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

After careful consideration of the evidence filed and the submissions made the Tribunal orders:

1. The appeal of Richard Dupuis under Section 48 of the Act is dismissed.

2. The assessment appeal of 104284 Canada Lteé (Wayne Assaly) under Section 54 of the Act is dismissed.

3. The decisions of the Court of Revision are confirmed.

4. Before passing by-law 99-48 of the Township of Champlain the drainage engineer is to modify his report by:

• Deleting from the Schedule of Culverts the 30m length of corrugated steel pipe from Station 0+077 to Station 0+107 property roll 010-001-180-00 and its estimated cost of $9,000.

• Reducing the estimate for New Culvert Installation on the “Estimate of Cost” page from $23,000 to $14,000.

• Deleting the second paragraph on page 5 under the heading The East Boundary Municipal Drain and substituting therefore the following :

“The East Boundary Municipal Drqain shall start at the Ottawa River where it finds sufficient outlet. Construction shall extend from Station 0+023, southerly, across County Road No. 4 and thence on the lands of 303041 Ontario Ltd. in the west half of the portion of the lot that fronts onto County Road No. 4, thence southerly across the lands of 303041 Ontario Ltd., along the east side of the line dividing the Town of Hawkesbury and the geographic Township of West Hawkesbury, (now the Township of Champlain) until it reaches the existing channel of the Séguin Municipal Drain, between Stations 0+139 and 0+150. The channel of the Séguin Municipal Drain shall be blocked up for a distance of approximately 30m. immediately East of its intersection with the East Boundary Municipal Drain to ensure the waters from upstream follow the new channel.”

• On Drawing No. K744-05 labelled “Profile” at station 0+023 deleting the words “Beginning of East Boundary M.D.” and substituting therefore the following:

“Downstream beginning of construction on East Boundary M.D.”

• Deleting from the Schedule of “Allowances for Land Use and Damages” the sum of $500 under the heading Allowance for Land Use and the sum of $945 under the heading Allowance for Land Damages opposite the land of Anita Coderre Roll Number

010-001-180-0.

• Deleting from the Schedule of “Allowances for Land Use and Damages” the lines showing the Town of Hawkesbury and the Total, Town of Hawkesbury.

• Inserting into the Schedule of “Allowances for Land Use and Damages” the sum of $1,580 opposite Roll number 01-089-00 owned by 483038 Ontario Inc. under the heading Allowance for Land Use.

• Inserting into the Schedule of ”Allowances for Land Use and Damages” the sum of $1,710 under the heading of Allowance for Land Damages and the sum of $10,000 under the heading of Allowance for Land Use opposite parcel Roll Number 01-090-01, Wayne Assaly, clearly indicating this is for the section of drain from Station 0+139 north to the north boundary of this property (the 50 foot lot). Under the heading Excavation and Spreading insert appropriate station numbers and indicate the spreading is on the East side of the drain.

• Substituting in the Schedule of “Allowances for Land Use and Damages” the sum of $14,100 instead of the sum of $16,000 under the heading Allowance for Land Use and the sum of $2,115 instead of the sum of $3,060 under the heading Allowance for Land Damages opposite parcel 01-090-01, Wayne Assaly, clearly indicating this is for the section of drain from Station 0+139 south, to the south boundary of this property.

• Substituting in the Schedule of “Allowances for Land Use and Damages” the sum $30,680 under the heading Allowance for land use and the sum of $7,875 under the Heading Allowance for Land Damages opposite the line Total Allowance for Drain.

5. All other allowances as shown in the report are confirmed.

• Increasing the amount for Allowance for land use from $21,500 to 30,680 and reducing the amount for Allowance for Damage from $8,055 to $7,875 in the Estimate of Cost.

• Amending the schedule of Assessment as follows:

Under the heading of Town of Hawkesbury

Roll Number 10-001-180-00 Coderre, Anita – delete Benefit Liability of $1000.

Town of Hawkesbury (Roads) - insert Benefit Liability of $1000.

• Adjusting the “Percentage Assessment for Maintenance” to reflect the changes that have been made to the “Schedule of Assessment” pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal.

6. 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.

Dated at Tilbury, Ontario this 6th▬ day of January▬ ⌙↨↨↨‼