ODR 1999

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal regarding the Trudell Drain No. 2.

The respondent municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the appeal was barred by Section 101 of the Drainage Act.

The Drainage Referee ordered the remedial work to proceed and subsequently heard the remaining issues.

The Referee dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's $2,000 costs penalty against the appellants for obstructing access, finding no grounds to quash the municipal by-law authorizing payment for topsoil, and awarding $4,000 in costs to the municipality due to the appellants' adversarial conduct.

The appellants claimed damages for crop losses from 1984 to 1994 resulting from the respondent municipality's failure to repair a municipal drain.

The respondent brought a motion to bar claims prior to September 1992 based on the two-year limitation period in section 111(2) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants brought a cross-motion to extend the time under section 113.

The Drainage Referee found that the cause of complaint arose in 1987 when the municipality entered a moratorium agreement that halted drainage works.

While claims prior to 1987 were barred, the Referee exercised discretion under section 113 to extend the limitation period, allowing the appellants to claim damages from 1987 onwards, as the moratorium had prejudiced and misled them regarding their rights.

The appellants sought increased allowances for soil restoration work and repairs to private tile drains following the construction of a municipal drain.

The Ontario Drainage Referee found that while the soil restoration was necessary, the appellants had elected to infill the drain to pre-1975 levels at a substantial extra cost, which went beyond the recommendations of the drainage engineer and soil experts.

The Referee granted an additional $10,000 allowance for the restoration work and a $3,000 allowance for potential minor repairs to the private tile drains, concluding that the public should not bear the full burden of the appellants' personal restoration objectives.

The appellant property owner brought a motion against the municipality for damages resulting from substandard work on a municipal drain adjacent to his property.

The Drainage Referee found that the municipality was negligent in failing to properly supervise the contractor's work, which involved over-excavation, and in failing to pursue the contractor or its bonding company for the deficiencies.

The Referee rejected the municipality's argument that the claim was statute-barred, finding the action was commenced within two years of the cause of complaint arising.

The appellant was awarded $9,000 in damages for necessary repairs to his property, discounted from the full estimated cost due to other contributing factors such as heavy rainfall and pre-existing damage.

The Town of Bosanquet applied to the Drainage Referee for an order declaring that the proposed extension of the Coultis Drain was a proper work under Section 78 of the Drainage Act, and for an emergency order to proceed immediately.

Upstream agricultural landowners and downstream cottage owners opposed the initial design and costs.

The Referee held that Section 78 provided the municipality with the authority to extend the drain to a sufficient outlet without a petition.

The Referee found no emergency existed to justify bypassing normal procedures.

After further hearings and collaboration among the parties' engineers, a revised, more cost-effective design was submitted and approved by the Referee, including a special assessment for the Town of Forest for past use of the drain.

The appellants appealed a Drainage Report that recommended the construction of a municipal drain to address slope instability and erosion on a property adjacent to a natural watercourse.

The Drainage Engineer had recommended filling the bottom of the ravine to stabilize the slope.

The Drainage Referee allowed the appeal and set aside the report, finding that the proposed work was for erosion control rather than the 'proper drainage of lands' as required by Section 3(1) of the Drainage Act.

The Referee concluded that the statutory authorization for a requisition drain could not be stretched to encompass a project whose singular objective was erosion control.