Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal 1 Stone Road West
Guelph, (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales 1 Stone Road West
Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Washington Drain City of Kawartha Lakes
Washington Drain (RE) [Interlocutory Order] 2001 ONAFRAAT 42
STATUTE:
Drainage Act
HEARING:
June 19 and September 18, 2001
DATE OF DECISION:
September 17, 2001
2001-42
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2001 ONAFRAAT 42
Washington Drain [Interlocutory Order]
City of Kawartha Lakes
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 Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Carl King under Sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act from a decision of the Court of Revision and the Engineer’s Report on the Washington Municipal Drain in the Township of Mariposa, City of Kawartha Lakes.
Before:
Andrew Osyany, Vice Chair Jack Young, Vice Chair
Andy Koopal, Member Russell Piper, Member
Appearances:
Paul Courey, counsel to the appellant, Mr. Carl King
Valerie M’Garry, counsel to the respondent, the City of Kawartha Lakes
William Turville, counsel to Tampa Farms Ltd., K. Fowler, B.&M. Vandenberg, B. Vandenberg, H. Stoelinga, R. Graham, F.&R. Graham, J.&R. Graham, Oakwood Agromart Ltd., 1035485 Ontario Ltd., G. Butterworth et al., J. Everson, J. Garland, J.&J. Hickson and J. Hickson.
MID-HEARING ORDER AND RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL
The hearing commenced on June 19, 2001. It was adjourned the same day, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, and the continuation was subsequently, on [date] set for September 18, 2001.
On September 12, 2001, by written submission on behalf of Mr. King, Mr. Courey asked for the adjournment of the hearing sine die. The reason is that Mr. King has elected to file appeals from the March 23, 2001 and June 29, 2001 decisions of the Tribunal to the Referee. In addition, Mr. Courey advised the Triibunal office that he had been retained by certain owners downstream of the proposed work with instructions to bring an application to the Referee for a declaration that the proposed work does not comply with the requirements of the Act and that the Municipality be enjoined from proceeding.
Written submissions, dated September 13, 2001, by counsel on behalf of the Municipality and the other represented parties, opposed Mr. King’s request.
The Tribunal notes that the Engineer’s report is dated April, 2000, the notice of the original hearing was served on [date] for March 15, 2001, the actual hearing commenced on June 19, 2001, and that three set days have been set aside for the continuation of the hearing, starting on September 18, 2001.
The Tribunal is mindful of its statutory and common law obligations to deal with matters properly before it in a fair and expeditious manner. In the absence of a valid operating order of prohibition directed to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will continue with the hearing in this matter and will deal with all issues as they arise.
After careful consideration of the evidence filed and the submissions made the Tribunal orders:
The application to adjourn the hearings sine die is dismissed.
The disposition of costs of the application to adjourn is reserved to be argued and dealt with upon the conclusion of this hearing.
Dated at Shelburne, Ontario this 17^th^ day of September, 2001