ODR 2000

The appellants claimed damages for trees cut and property damage caused by the respondent Township during municipal drain repair work following an ice storm.

The Drainage Referee found that the Township had a statutory duty to perform the work and was not negligent in its use of heavy equipment or the timing of the work.

However, the Township was negligent in failing to properly notify and consult with the appellants before entering their property.

The appellants were also found contributorily negligent for failing to inform themselves after being approached by the contractor.

Damages of $1,000 were awarded as the appellants failed to prove significant objective losses.

The applicants brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to expand their claim for damages from 1994-1996 to 1987-1996.

The respondent opposed, arguing the claims were barred by notice requirements under the Drainage Act and limitation periods.

The Drainage Referee granted the motion to amend, finding that any prejudice to the respondent could be compensated in costs, and deferred the determination of the notice and limitation issues to the trial judge.

The plaintiff developer sued the defendant municipality for damages, alleging negligent design and installation of a municipal drain across its proposed subdivision.

The plaintiff claimed the drain was not installed on the property lines and that reduced pipe grades compromised its capacity.

The Drainage Referee applied the discoverability rule to find the action was not statute-barred.

On the merits, the Referee dismissed the negligence and damages claims, finding the drain's design was adequate for its intended rural and future urban purposes, and that while the installation deviated from the planned grades, subsequent remedial work and increased downstream grades compensated for any lost capacity.

The Referee ordered that an unauthorized private perimeter drain built by the plaintiff be incorporated into the municipal drainage system, with an allowance paid to the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Referee to quash a by-law adopting a drainage report, arguing the underlying petition was invalid.

The petition was signed by a single landowner whose property constituted the only area requiring drainage, though it was a minority of the total watershed.

The Referee dismissed the appeal, accepting the drainage engineer's professional opinion that the upstream and downstream lands did not require drainage due to topography and land use.

The Referee held that the petition met the requirements of the Drainage Act because the single signatory owned at least 60 percent of the hectarage in the specific area requiring drainage.

The applicants moved to set aside an ex parte order made by the Drainage Referee, which had established procedures and parties for a drainage scheme without notice to the affected municipalities.

The applicants argued that the Referee lacked jurisdiction to make an ex parte order without evidence of urgency or impracticality of notice.

The Referee agreed, finding no sufficient evidence of an emergency or practical difficulties in providing notice to justify dispensing with it.

The motion to set aside the ex parte order was granted.

The appellants appealed to the Drainage Referee seeking orders for the municipality to repair municipal drains on their property, spread or remove spoil banks, and restore adjacent land for agricultural production.

The municipality conceded its obligation to repair the drains but denied liability for damages, noting the appellants had not provided prior written notice as required by section 79 of the Drainage Act.

The Referee found that the previous owner had requested the spoil banks not be spread during the original construction, leaving the responsibility with subsequent owners.

The Referee ordered the drains repaired and the spoil spread as part of the repair work, with costs assessed to the appellants in accordance with the original drainage report.

No costs were awarded.

The Town of Forest appealed its assessment under the Revised Drainage Report for the Coultis Drain, challenging the inclusion of duplicate watershed areas, the run-off coefficient factor of 15 applied to its roads, and a $10,000 special historic assessment.

The Drainage Referee found that the duplicate areas should remain assessed due to their reliance on the Coultis Drain during major storm events, but reduced their outlet assessment by 50%.

The Referee upheld the factor of 15 for the roads, citing the town's steep grades and lack of storm water management, and maintained the $10,000 special assessment.

Costs were awarded against the municipalities for their engineers' failure to communicate effectively.

The Town of Bosanquet and other parties appealed a revised drainage report under the Drainage Act.

The Town of Forest brought a motion to adjourn the hearing on the basis that individual property owners within the town had not received proper notice of their block assessments.

The Drainage Referee granted the adjournment to ensure natural justice and ordered the drainage engineer to provide a rationale for the assessments.

The hearing then proceeded on the separate appeal of two property owners regarding the design of the drain and their assessment ratio.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to amend the drain design to extend an enclosed pipe across the appellants' property, with the extra cost assessed pro rata to all owners, and the remainder of their appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a municipal by-law adopting a drainage report, arguing the petition for the drainage works was invalid under Section 4 of the Drainage Act because it was signed by only one landowner in a larger watershed.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the appeal, accepting the drainage engineer's professional opinion that the single petitioner's property was the only 'area requiring drainage' due to the topography and land use of the surrounding properties.

As the petitioner owned 60% of the hectarage in the specific area requiring drainage, the petition was valid.

The appellants appealed an order of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal that dismissed their appeals regarding a municipal drain report and awarded costs against them.

The appellants argued they were denied a fair hearing on a preliminary motion and that their appeals were reasonable due to historical flooding and insufficient outlet issues.

The Drainage Referee acknowledged the complex history of the drain and the difficult position of the appellants, but ultimately declined to interfere with the Tribunal's discretionary award of costs.

The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs for the proceeding before the Referee.