Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal

Several ratepayers appealed the assessments and the engineer's report for the Abraham Municipal Drain Improvement.

The appellants preferred the installation of a new, larger tile drain rather than the proposed cost-sensitive solution involving a detention berm that would flood a woodlot.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals as no evidence was presented against them.

The Tribunal confirmed the existing report but ordered the Township not to proceed until it received and considered a new report detailing the construction of a large tile drain, giving the ratepayers an opportunity to review the preferred but more expensive option.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, claiming the Nelson Street Outlet Municipal Drain was constructed in the wrong location.

The Tribunal found that the drain was not constructed to the specifications of the engineer's report due to unanticipated construction difficulties.

However, because there was little immediate advantage to relocating the drain, the Tribunal ordered the respondent municipality to pay the appellant an allowance of $4,000 for future reconstruction costs, allowing the appellant to relocate the drain at its convenience.

The appellants appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act concerning the quality of construction of the Trudell Drain No. 2.

They raised several complaints including erosion, potential pipe damage, and incomplete outlet structures.

The Tribunal found that the municipality and contractor were ready to complete the necessary warranty work but were prevented from doing so by the appellants, who refused access.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to complete the repairs, directed the appellants to provide access, and assessed $2,000 in costs against the appellants for unnecessarily prolonging the dispute.

The appellant appealed the drainage assessment proposed in an engineer's report for the Howick Drain 11 Extension, arguing that the municipality caused the drainage problem by filling in a low area for an arena parking lot and that the agricultural lands did not benefit from the proposed drain.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the proposed project was a reasonable technical solution and that the engineer's methodology for calculating the assessments was fair.

The appeal was denied and the assessments were upheld.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the Norman Heights Municipal Drain, arguing that the proposed drainage works should be modified, the allowances were insufficient, and the assessments were improper.

The appellant proposed a low-cost alternative using an existing tile drainage system.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant's alternative lacked sufficient investigation into the outlet's suitability, and that the engineer's allowances and assessments were reasonable and unbiased.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent municipality.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision confirming their assessment for the Domm Municipal Drain, Branch D. They argued their assessment was too high compared to a neighbouring property, asserting that the neighbour's tile drainage contributed to the water flow.

The respondent municipality's engineer testified about the methodology used to calculate benefit and outlet liability, which factored in acreage, land class, distance, and profile.

The Tribunal found the engineer's methodology consistent and the resulting assessment fair and reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the quality of construction of the Branconnier Drain, alleging defects including bank slumping, an obstructed culvert, lack of seeding, and unremoved sediment traps.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the bank slippage, culvert placement, and lack of seeding did not constitute construction defects, as they either complied with the engineer's report or were maintenance issues.

However, the Tribunal found a deficiency regarding the temporary sediment traps, which had not been removed as required by the specifications.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent municipality to complete the removal of the accumulated sediments and temporary sediment traps within six weeks.

Several ratepayers appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the North Woolsey Drain, arguing that the proposed improvements (enclosing an open ditch with a tile drain) were too costly and that a clean-out would be preferable.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the main purpose of the proposed work was to eliminate the existing open ditch, which primarily benefited the abutting properties.

The Tribunal ordered the outlet assessment to be reduced by half, with the reduction charged to the lands assessed a special benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Township Council to circulate the revised assessment schedule, meet with the parties, and then decide whether to proceed with the project or simply clean out the drain.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report on the Wallis Municipal Drain.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to endorse the minutes of settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the municipality's clerk to modify the provisional by-law to reflect the settlement and circulate it to affected owners with notice of their right to appeal.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Oake Branch of the Wiles Municipal Drain.

They challenged the watershed boundary and the assessments levied against their lands.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that the engineer's report provided an appropriate solution to the drainage problem and that the minor adjustment to the outlet assessment that might result from changing the watershed boundary would be offset by the cost of determining it.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Township of Raleigh applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Gregory Drain.

The Township of Harwich confirmed it had no objections.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal granted the application, permitting the appointment of an engineer, and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Several landowners and the Township of Kenyon appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the MacCrimmon Municipal Drain improvement.

The proposed work involved replacing two culverts.

Upstream owners argued they received no benefit and should not be assessed costs, while the engineer assessed 50% of costs to abutting owners and 50% to the watershed.

The Tribunal found the work necessary as the existing culverts were unsafe and undersized.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer's report amended to divide overhead costs equally between the two culverts, assess the total cost of each culvert 50% to the abutting landowner and 50% to the contributing watershed, and clarify that maintenance of the culverts is part of the drain with costs shared similarly.

The Tribunal also ordered the removal of references specifying culvert sizes in the upstream Township of Kenyon.

Several landowners appealed the Court of Revision's decision confirming the assessments for the Mill Creek Municipal Drain Improvement.

The engineer who prepared the report, Philip McNeely, stated at the hearing that he no longer felt the proposed project was viable and that it should not proceed.

Based on this statement, the Tribunal ordered that the engineer's report be abandoned and provided the affected municipalities and landowners an opportunity to develop an alternative proposal to address the flooding problem.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the proposed Minnema Drain.

The appellant argued that the drain should be modified to separate his private tile from the municipal drain, eliminate a grassed waterway, or take an alternate route, and that his assessment was too high.

The Tribunal found that incorporating the private tile was a reasonable solution, the grassed waterway was necessary for erosion control, and the engineer's assessment methodology was correct.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the Sheahan Municipal Drain under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act, arguing that his property was assessed too high and that the drainage works should be modified.

The modification issues were resolved during the hearing and the section 48(1) appeal was withdrawn.

On the assessment issue, the Tribunal found that the appellant and another property owner were assessed too high for the increased cost of a sealed-joint pipe through their bush lots, while another property owner (Sunrise) was underassessed for the benefit of an improved direct outlet.

The Tribunal ordered a redistribution of the benefit assessments, increasing Sunrise's assessment and reducing the assessments of the appellant and others.

The Township of Aldborough applied under section 58(4) of the Drainage Act to amend a by-law to reflect the as-built location of a drainage works, which deviated from the planned location due to a construction error.

The affected landowner and the County of Elgin consented to the as-built location.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal found that while the situation was a construction error rather than a gross error in the report, it was appropriate to use its authority under section 51(1) to order an amendment to the report and by-law to avoid the cost of rebuilding the works.

The Township of Hay applied under section 76 of the Drainage Act for permission to appoint an engineer to procure a report to vary the assessment for the Koehler Municipal Drain.

The Village of Hensall confirmed it had no objections.

The Ontario Drainage Tribunal granted the application and ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report for the May Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the drain was unnecessary and that they should not be assessed for it, while the owners of the May property supported the drain but contested their assessment.

The Tribunal found that the project should proceed as recommended, as the engineer had properly considered alternatives and the appellants provided no evidence to contradict the project's benefits.

However, the Tribunal adjusted the benefit assessments, increasing the assessments for several properties and decreasing the assessment for the May property, while adding a special benefit assessment to the May property for excessive consultation costs.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act, alleging dissatisfaction with the quality of construction of the Brick Road Drain.

The appellant experienced flooding on his property after a heavy rainstorm but admitted he was unsure if the issue was design or construction.

The respondent's engineer and drainage superintendent testified the drain was constructed to specifications.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it frivolous as the appellant provided no evidence that the construction failed to meet specifications, and ordered the appellant to pay $1,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding assessments for proposed work on the South Vance Drain.

The engineer's report proposed replacing a culvert, relocating the appellant's access culvert, and replacing an open ditch with a tile drain.

During the hearing, it became apparent that none of the assessed ratepayers, including the appellant, wanted the work on the appellant's land.

The Tribunal referred the report back to the engineer to delete all work except the culvert replacement for another ratepayer, and adjusted the assessment for that culvert.

The appellant was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs for creating confusion regarding the requested work.