ODR 1996

The plaintiff brought an action for damages against the municipality after heavy rainfall caused a municipal drain to overflow and flood his property.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality was negligent in maintaining the drain and in installing an undersized culvert.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff failed to provide adequate written notice of disrepair as required by section 79 of the Drainage Act.

Furthermore, the Referee held the municipality was not negligent in construction, as the culvert met the two-year storm standard required for municipal drains, and the plaintiff failed to prove the storm's intensity.

The Referee ordered the municipality to prepare a preliminary drainage report to explore solutions to the flooding.

The Township of Howard appealed a decision of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal that had altered the assessment of costs for repairing a municipal drain.

The Referee found that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by conducting a pre-hearing site visit, forming a tentative opinion before hearing evidence, and relying on unsworn testimony from an unidentified witness.

The Referee set aside the Tribunal's decision and restored the original assessment prepared by the drainage engineer.

The Ontario Drainage Referee heard an appeal regarding the repair and improvement of the No. 4 Drain.

The appointed Drainage Engineer provided a preliminary report recommending limited work to control erosion and the provision of insufficient outlet allowances to affected owners.

The Appellants presented alternative engineering proposals for more extensive and costly stabilization of the ravine.

The Referee ordered that the final Drainage Report be based on the appointed Drainage Engineer's preliminary report, noting that the Ministry would not fund the Appellants' more elaborate proposals.

The Referee also ordered specific modifications, including basing allowances on a land value of $1,000 per acre and increasing allowances for insufficient outlet.

The appellants, assessed owners on the Tunnel Drain, appealed a resolution and by-law passed by the Township of Romney to levy the costs of work done on the drain.

The central issue was whether the work, which involved plastering the interior of the tunnel with concrete, constituted a 'repair' under section 75 of the Drainage Act or an 'improvement' under section 78.

The Drainage Referee found that the work was an improvement because it modified the drainage works to increase its effectiveness, involved significant complexity and cost, and went beyond mere restoration.

Consequently, the Township erred by proceeding without an engineer's report and the required procedural safeguards.

The Referee ordered that the assessments on private lands be reduced by 40%, with the difference to be paid from the Township's general revenues.