ODR 1998

The Municipality of West Elgin brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of John and Joanne Vergeer regarding a decision of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal concerning the Trudell Drain #2.

The Referee dismissed the appeal insofar as it concerned matters governed by section 64 of the Drainage Act and authorized the Municipality to complete the specified work forthwith.

The appellants were ordered to provide access through their lands, and the remaining relief sought by the Municipality was adjourned sine die.

The applicants brought a motion requesting a strict interpretation of Section 15 of the Drainage Act to require a sufficient outlet for a municipal drain.

The respondent municipality argued the application should be dismissed on the basis of res judicata, as the issues had been determined in previous proceedings.

The Drainage Referee held that Section 15 must be read subject to Section 32, which provides discretionary powers to compensate owners of low-lying lands instead of continuing a drain to a sufficient outlet.

The Referee also found that the application was barred by res judicata, as no new evidence was available and the issues of outlet sufficiency and compensation had already been decided.

The appellant appealed the Town of Dresden's proceedings for the construction of the Trerice Street East Drain, arguing the municipality failed to observe the procedural requirements of the Drainage Act.

The Referee found that the Town failed to provide necessary notices to affected owners and the adjacent Township of Camden.

A special hearing was convened to remedy the procedural errors, during which a settlement was reached to enclose the drain through a flood plain, facilitated by a financial contribution from a local business.

The Referee awarded the appellant $5,000 in costs, finding his appeal was justified and served to remedy the natural justice errors.

The appellants appealed regarding the R.F. McLennan Drain.

A court-appointed drainage engineer prepared a report confirming that the 1975 drain installation was severely flawed and recommended new tile installation under two options.

The Drainage Referee approved the report with amendments, adopting the higher-capacity Option B. Due to the faulty prior installation, the Referee ordered the municipality and the provincial ministry to each pay a $55,000 special assessment toward construction costs.

The Referee also granted a $17,000 special allowance to the appellants for soil rehabilitation due to prolonged damage to their agricultural land.

The appellants appealed regarding the functioning of a municipal drain that had caused extensive flooding and erosion on their property since its installation in 1974.

All parties agreed that the drain was not functioning satisfactorily, required repair, and that an independent engineering firm should be appointed to prepare a new report.

The Drainage Referee ordered the appointment of an independent engineer to prepare a new report for repair with assessment revision.

In a subsequent oral decision, the Referee indicated an intention to make a special one-time assessment against the Ministry and the Municipality to cover the costs, subject to their right to make submissions.

The appellant filed a claim for damages against the respondent municipality for negligence in the maintenance and operation of a municipal drain.

The appellant alleged that during a cleanout, the municipality over-excavated the drain, causing crop losses, machinery damage, and leaving an unsightly spoil bank.

The Drainage Referee found the municipality negligent for failing to follow the original profile, lacking supervision, and poor communication.

The referee awarded damages for crop loss and machinery damage, ordered the municipality to remove the spoil bank, and awarded costs to the self-represented appellant.

Claims for punitive damages and damages unrelated to the negligence were dismissed.

The plaintiff municipality sought reimbursement from the defendants for costs incurred in reconstructing a municipal drain, pursuant to a prior order of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal.

The matter was transferred from Small Claims Court to the Court of the Drainage Referee.

The defendants requested a new trial on the merits of the prior order, arguing they were unprepared at the original hearing.

The Referee dismissed the request for a new trial, noting a lack of jurisdiction to hear appeals regarding quality of construction under the Drainage Act, and ordered the defendants to pay the full reimbursement amount of $7,840.83 plus costs.

The appellant, the Town of Bosanquet, and the respondents were involved in a dispute regarding proposed work on the Coultis Drain.

The Drainage Referee found that the major obstacle to the proposed work was the cost of the project.

The Referee ordered that a new engineering report be prepared in consultation with the parties' engineers, with the recommended works not to exceed a cost of $200,000.

The balance of the motion and the determination of costs were adjourned to a later hearing.

Following a decision of the Drainage Referee, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The appellant sought costs on a solicitor and client basis, arguing the respondent unreasonably refused to settle and caused procedural delays.

The respondent argued costs should be denied or limited, and that the Referee only had jurisdiction over costs for proceedings before the Referee under s. 108 of the Drainage Act.

The Referee agreed that jurisdiction was limited to proceedings before the Referee and found no justification for solicitor and client costs, as the respondent's actions were not malicious or vexatious and involved a genuine issue of legal interpretation.

Costs were fixed at $6,600 for fees plus $3,340.96 for disbursements.

The appellant appealed a municipal drainage project, arguing that the initiating petition was deficient due to property misdescriptions, unauthorized signatures, and the failure of all joint owners to sign.

The Drainage Referee held that while minor property misdescriptions do not invalidate a petition, signatures by non-owners without clear written authorization are invalid.

Furthermore, following previous jurisprudence, the Referee determined that all joint owners must sign a drainage petition.

Because twelve signatures were found to be faulty, the petition was deemed insufficient and the by-law was quashed.