ODR 2002

The Township of Ramara brought a motion before the Ontario Drainage Referee for a declaration that previous orders regarding the McNabb Drain were made pursuant to Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

The motion was prompted by complaints that the drain was not properly constituted by petition, which affected agricultural grants.

The Referee found that the drain was an agricultural drain and that the Referee had original jurisdiction under Section 106 of the Drainage Act to make the orders.

The Referee ordered that the drain be classified as a Standard Agricultural Municipal Drain, entitling it to agricultural grants.

The parties settled a damage claim regarding a private ditch constructed in 1997, agreeing to allocate $35,000 in restorative costs among four defendants.

The Drainage Referee then reviewed the assessments and allowances in the Drainage Engineer's report for the McNabb Drain.

The Referee confirmed most assessments, including those for downstream commercial owners who benefited from flow control measures, but granted reductions to certain farmers whose lands were inundated by highway runoff, transferring those costs to the Ministry of Transportation.

The Township was awarded a portion of its legal costs.

The appellant requested corrections to a previous decision of the Ontario Drainage Referee, arguing that clerical errors were made and that an application by other parties was improperly dismissed without a hearing on the merits.

The respondent agreed to the clerical correction but argued the application was properly before the Referee.

The Referee found that due to confusion surrounding the hearing, including a strike by government employees and the late issuance of files, a procedural error occurred.

To avoid a breach of natural justice, the Referee amended the previous decision to correct the clerical error and to adjourn the application of the other parties so it could be heard on its merits.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal concerning a municipal drain, alleging breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The respondent municipality argued that the Drainage Referee lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals due to the privative clause in section 101 of the Drainage Act, and that such matters must be brought as applications for judicial review to the Divisional Court.

The Referee concluded that he lacked both inherent and statutory jurisdiction to hear appeals based on procedural abuse or breach of natural justice, finding that the privative clause barred the appeal and that relief must be sought in the Divisional Court.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law adopting an engineer's report for a requisition drain.

The appellant argued the estimated costs exceeded the $7,500 statutory limit under the Drainage Act, the engineer was in a conflict of interest, and the drain lacked a sufficient outlet.

The Drainage Referee found that the engineering fees pushed the total cost over the statutory limit before the by-law was passed.

Furthermore, the engineer was concurrently working for the subdivider and the municipality, creating a conflict of interest.

The by-law was quashed.

The appellant was completely successful in having a municipal drainage by-law set aside.

The parties requested the Ontario Drainage Referee to fix the legal costs of the proceedings.

The Referee applied the Superior Court tariff and considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Recognizing the municipality's role as an impartial administrator of the Drainage Act and the lack of legal precedent on the issue, the Referee fixed costs payable to the appellant at $10,000 plus disbursements.

The Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury applied to procure an engineer's report to vary the assessment schedule for the Holland Marsh Drainage System under section 76(1) of the Drainage Act.

The engineer's report assessed upstream lands and riparian owners for outlet liability due to increased siltation from changed farming practices and urbanization.

The respondent municipalities and several landowners appealed the assessments.

The Ontario Drainage Referee dismissed the appeals, finding that changed circumstances justified the new report, the engineer had authority to assess new properties, and the Drainage Act permits the assessment of upstream and riparian lands for outlet liability.

The applicant municipality sought directions from the Drainage Referee regarding a complex and expensive proposed municipal drain project.

The Referee confirmed the area requiring drainage as no challenges were brought.

The Referee determined that the third petition for the drainage works was valid under section 4(1)(a) of the Drainage Act, holding that the required majority is based on the number of owners rather than the number of properties.

Given the unique complexity, environmental considerations, and costs of the project, the Referee ordered that he would remain seized of the matter to provide ongoing directions and hear any appeals from the preliminary report.