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 Courriel: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
Hostine Drain East Branch (RE) [Standing Order] Municipality of Lakeshore Gerald & Jodi Papineau Gisele Hutchings John and Linda Fontes
Hostine Drain East Branch (RE) [Standing Order]
STATUTE:
Drainage Act
HEARING:
September 3, 4, 5, and 9, 2025
DATE OF DECISION:
May 7, 2025
002Hostine25
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2025 ONAFRAAT 05
IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAINAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17, AS AMENDED.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Notice of Appeal to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by Gerald & Jodi Papineau and Gisele Hutchings of Woodlsee, Ontario under Sections 48, 54 and 65(11) of the Drainage Act with respect to the Hostine Drain East Branch in the Municipality of Lakeshore.
AND IN THE MATTER of submissions made in writing pursuant to a Pre-Hearing Conference Order dated April 15, 2025 (“the Order”).
BETWEEN:
Gerald & Jodi Papineau Gisele Hutchings Appellants
– and –
Municipality of Lakeshore Respondent
– and –
John and Linda Fontes Party
Represented by Paul Courey Represented by Scott Snider
Represented by Edwin Hooker
Before: Tricia Schouten, Vice-Chair , William Bartlett, Vice-Chair, David Fawcett, Member.
DECISION
Background
1On April 11, 2025, a pre-hearing conference was held before the Tribunal in relation to the appeal submitted by Gerard Papineau and Jodi Papineau and Gisele Hutchings under sections 48, 54 and 65(11) of the Drainage Act (“the Act”), with respect to the Hostine Drain East Branch located in the Municipality of Lakeshore.
2At the pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal raised the issue of Ms. Hutchings’ standing with respect to her appeal pursuant to section 54 of the Act.
3Pursuant to the Order, Mr. Courey was to make written submissions to the Tribunal on or before April 25, 2025, with respect to Ms. Hutchings’ standing in connection with her appeal pursuant to section 54. If Mr. Snider and Mr. Hooker wished to make submissions in response to Mr. Courey’s submissions, they were to do so by May 2, 2025. Submissions have been received from Mr. Courey, Mr. Snider and Mr. Hooker.
Submissions
4Mr. Courey submits that Ms. Hutchings attempted to appeal to the court of revision, but that the court of revision did not “deal with” her appeal as opposed to denying it. She is appealing to the Tribunal from the failure of the court of revision to grant her appeal.
5Mr. Snider submits that Ms. Hutchings must be an assessed landowner in order to appeal to the court of revision. Whether she participated, appealed to or was present at the court of revisions is irrelevant. As she was not an assessed landowner, she is not eligible to appeal pursuant to section 54.
6Mr. Hooker’s submission is that he has no position with respect to Mr. Courey’s submissions in this regard.
Decision
7Standing to bring an appeal pursuant to section 54 of the Act is provided for in section 54(1) of the Act:
54 (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.
8Standing to bring an appeal before the court of revision is provided for in section 52(1) of the Act:
52 (1) An owner of land assessed for the drainage works may appeal to the court of revision on any of the following grounds:
Any land or road has been assessed an amount that is too high or too low.
Any land or road that should have been assessed has not been assessed.
Due consideration has not been given to the use being made of the land.
9The presence of Ms. Hutchings at the court of revision appeal is irrelevant. In order to have standing to bring an appeal pursuant to section 54 of the Act, she must have been a party to the appeal before the court of revision.
10Ms. Hutchings could not have been a party to the appeal before the court of revision as she was not an owner of land assessed for the drainage works. As such, she does not have standing to bring an appeal pursuant to section 54 of the Act.
Order
11The Tribunal Orders that the appeal of Gisele Hutchings pursuant to section 54 of the Act has no standing and is therefore dismissed.
Dated at, Richmond, Ontario this 7th day of May, 2025.
This document is also available in French. Please contact the Tribunal at 519-826-3433 or by email at AFRAAT@ontario.ca to request a copy in French.
Ce document est également disponible en français. Veuillez contacter le tribunal au 519 826-3433 ou par courriel à AFRAAT@ontario.ca pour demander une copie en français.