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 ON N1G 4Y2 Tel: 519 826-3433, Fax: 519 826-4232 Email: appeals.tribunal.omafra@ontario.ca
Guelph ON N1G 4Y2 Tél. : 519 826-3433, Téléc. : 519 826-4232 Courriel : appeals.tribunal.omafra@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Miller Drainage Works 1969 Municipality of Southwest Middlesex
Miller Drainage Works (RE) 2010 ONAFRAAT 39
STATUTE:
Drainage Act
HEARING:
DATE OF DECISION:
December 16, 2010
2010-39
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2010 ONAFRAAT 39
MILLER DRAINAGE WORKS 1969
Order of the Tribunal
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: Appeals to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal by Rein Minnema of Glencoe, Ontario under Subsection 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act from the Engineer’s report and from a decision of the Court of Revision on the Miller Drainage Works 1969 in the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex.
AND IN THE MATTER OF: A request by the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex for a stay of point #3 of the Tribunal’s decision Order dated November 8, 2010.
Before:
Susan Whelan, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
None
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Background
The Tribunal held a hearing with respect to the Miller Drainage Works 1969 in the Council Chambers of the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex in Glencoe, Ontario on November 2, 2010 as a result of appeals by Mr. Rein Minnema to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under Sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act (The “Act”) from the Engineer’s Report (the “Report”) dated November 8, 2009, and from a decision of the Court of Revision dated April 13, 2010. The Report was prepared by Raymond Dobbin, P.Eng. (the “Engineer”) under Section 78 of the Act. A decision arising from that hearing was issued on November 8, 2010.
On December 8, 2010, the Tribunal received a letter from the Municipality of Southwest Middlesex requesting a review of the November 8, 2010 decision. Further, on December 15, 2010, the Tribunal received a letter from the Municipality seeking a stay of point #3 of the Tribunal’s decision Order dated November 8, 2010. Point #3 of the Order in the Tribunal’s decision reads as follows:
“3. Thirty days after the notice to the Conservation Authority has been sent, Council for the Municipality shall appoint the Engineer, Mr. Raymond Dobbin, to prepare a final report for the enclosure of the Miller Drainage Works 1969, comprised of a tile and surface swale over the tile to accommodate excess surface water, extending from the outlet of the existing tile drains to Longwoods Road as described in Mr. Dobbin’s Preliminary Report dated February 10, 2006. The process following the appointment of Mr. Dobbin shall be in accordance with the Act.”
Issue
Should the Tribunal grant a stay of point #3 of the Tribunal’s decision Order dated November 8, 2010?
Analysis
Parties seeking relief of a matter in an appeal typically file Motions in accordance with Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In this case, the Municipality filed a request for review of the Tribunal’s November 8, 2010 decision, and subsequently requested that point #3 of that decision be stayed pending the outcome of the review to avoid having to incur costs of having the Engineer complete a new report when there exists the possibility that the decision on the request for review could nullify all or part of the current Tribunal decision.
Rules 2.02 and 2.03 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state,
“Rule 2.02 The Tribunal may grant all necessary amendments or other relief, including the setting aside of a component of an appeal, on such terms as the Tribunal may determine, in order to correct a failure to comply with these rules.”
“Rule 2.03 The Tribunal may, in order to secure the most just, most expeditious and most cost effective determination of any appeal, dispense with compliance with any rule at any time.”
Given that the request for review is under consideration, in these circumstances, it would make sense for the Municipality to cease any further action on this drainage works until the outcome of the consideration of the request for review is known. The Municipality’s request for a stay of point #3 is reasonable and prudent in order to avoid unnecessary costs being added to the cost of the drainage works. In addition, because the Tribunal’s decision is currently the subject of a request for review, no party would be prejudiced or its interests harmed by granting a stay of point #3 of the order at this stage.
For the above reasons, I find this is a situation where it would be reasonable for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion and dispense with the filing of a Motion and grant the relief being sought by the Municipality.
THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal hereby orders that point #3 of the Tribunal’s decision order dated November 8, 2010 is stayed pending a decision arising from the review of the Tribunal’s decision of the Miller Drainage Works 1969 dated November 8, 2010.
Dated at Amherstburg, Ontario this 16th day of December, 2010