ODR 2004

The applicants, downstream landowners, appealed the decisions concerning the Washington Municipal Drain, arguing that the proposed work would worsen existing flooding on their lands.

The respondent municipality moved to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional and timeliness grounds.

The Drainage Referee extended the time for the appeal, finding the applicants had not received formal notice and were confused by multiple proceedings.

On the merits, the Referee accepted expert evidence that the Washington Drain had a sufficient outlet independently, allowing that work to proceed.

However, recognizing the historical flooding and the impact of combined drainage works, the Referee directed the municipality to appoint an engineer to complete remedial work on the downstream MacLaren Creek watershed.

The Township of Ramara brought a motion before the Drainage Referee to approve Addendum No. 2 to an Engineer's Report regarding a municipal drain, and to order the passing of a by-law adopting the addendum.

The addendum included modifications to a storm water management facility and maintenance schedules.

Downstream landowners raised concerns about pollution from cattle access and sediment.

The Referee approved the addendum and modifications, ordered fencing to restrict cattle access to the drain, and directed the cleaning of sediment ponds to address public safety and pollution concerns.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Drainage Referee regarding Municipal Drain Number 4.

They brought a preliminary motion to introduce fresh evidence alleging bias because the Referee had previously provided legal advice to the township's engineering expert.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidence was not decisive.

On the main appeal, the appellants argued that section 15 of the Drainage Act required a sufficient outlet on their land and that section 32 did not apply.

The court upheld the Referee's interpretation that section 32 provides an alternative to a sufficient outlet where it is not economically feasible, allowing for compensation to downstream landowners.

The court also rejected the argument that the engineer's report should have been excluded due to a lack of cross-examination, noting the appellants failed to subpoena the engineer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000.

The parties appeared before the Ontario Drainage Referee to make submissions on costs following a decision regarding the Referee's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

The jurisdictional issue had been uncertain due to conflicting decisions and was of broad interest to the drainage community.

The Referee agreed with counsel that costs should not be assessed against either party, following the precedent set by the Divisional Court in the same matter.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, with the municipality's legal costs to be paid from its general revenues.

The appellants appealed a supplementary decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal regarding the East Branch of the Black Creek Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal had originally ordered a preliminary report at the appellants' expense, capped at $6,000.

Later, without notice to the appellants, the Tribunal issued a clarification order increasing the required deposit to $11,000 based on a letter from the municipality.

The Drainage Referee found that the Tribunal breached natural justice by issuing the supplementary decision without notice.

After a full hearing, the Referee determined that the drain was in a reasonable state of repair and that a preliminary report was no longer justified.

The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's decisions were set aside, and the municipality was ordered to appoint an engineer under s. 78 of the Drainage Act to investigate a private dam structure on the West Branch.

The plaintiff brought a motion regarding the validity of a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The parties reached a settlement on several issues, leaving the validity of the petition to be determined by the Drainage Referee.

The core issue was the definition of the 'area requiring drainage'.

The Referee considered expert engineering evidence and concluded that the area requiring drainage was primarily located on the plaintiff's lands, based on physical characteristics and agricultural land use.

As the plaintiff owned more than 60% of the area requiring drainage, the petition was declared valid with only the plaintiff's signature.