ODR 2022

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the Lament Drain, arguing that the petition was invalid and the area requiring drainage was incorrectly defined.

The respondent municipality maintained that the engineer properly determined the area requiring drainage and the petition was valid.

The Drainage Referee found that while the petition itself was valid, the engineer's report contained gross errors, including an incorrect description of the area requiring drainage and an incorrect calculation of statutory requirements.

The Referee also found that the engineer failed to fulfill his duties by not advising the municipal council of a known error in the report.

The Referee ordered the engineer to correct the report in consultation with the appellants' expert engineer and awarded partial indemnity costs to the appellants.

The applicants and the respondent municipality mutually agreed to settle the application.

The Acting Drainage Referee ordered the application dismissed without costs.

The applicants withdrew their signatures from the petition upon which the Engineer's Report was based.

As a result, there was nothing further for the Township Council or the Court of the Drainage Referee to consider under the Drainage Act.

The application was dismissed, with costs to be determined by written submissions if the parties could not agree.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a procedural order following a case management video conference.

The order established a timetable for the respondent to bring a preliminary motion under the Limitations Act, including dates for the exchange of motion records and factums, and scheduled the motion to be heard by video conference.

The order also set out detailed protocols for conducting video conference hearings and the filing of exhibits.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a case management order in a dispute over the validity of a petition for a municipal drain.

The order provided detailed directions for giving notice of the proceedings to potentially affected property owners within the estimated watershed.

It also set out a schedule for the exchange of affidavits, ordered the production of relevant engineering documents, established video conference protocols for future hearings, and directed that certain costs incurred by the respondent Service Board be paid out of its general funds rather than assessed against the petitioners or the drainage project.

The applicants, who are self-represented, sought document production from the respondent Service Board during a case management conference.

The dispute centered on the production of an engineering file from Burnside Engineering, whose letter report formed the basis of the Service Board's position that the applicants' petition was invalid.

The Acting Drainage Referee ordered the Service Board to produce the underlying engineering file, finding that the credibility and weight of the engineering report required disclosure of the foundational documents.

The Referee also ordered that the costs of dealing with the document production issues be paid out of the general funds of the Service Board and not charged to the applicants.

In a dispute over a drainage petition, the applicants sought document production and clarification of the proper respondents.

The Acting Drainage Referee ordered that the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury be added as a party respondent alongside the Holland Marsh Drainage System Joint Municipal Services Board, noting the Town's direct interest and the lack of clarity regarding the Service Board's delegated authority.

The Referee also ordered the municipal respondents to produce all relevant documents to the self-represented applicants and set out a procedural framework for future case management and the hearing on the merits.

The respondent Municipality brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' claims for damages, arguing that such claims are not actionable under section 79 of the Drainage Act because they do not meet the common law requirements for 'injurious affection.' The Municipality asserted that the applicants had no common law tort claim (nuisance, negligence, trespass) for damages caused by natural weather phenomena on Lake Erie.

The Acting Drainage Referee dismissed the motion, finding that section 79 of the Act is intended to extend a municipality's liability to an owner whose property is affected by the condition of a drainage works, even if such claims would be denied at common law.

The Referee held that section 79 creates a strict liability statutory cause of action and declined to read into it the requirements of common law torts.

The applicants brought a motion requesting that the presiding Acting Drainage Referee recuse himself, alleging that he had prejudged facts and law in a previous order setting out preliminary issues.

The Referee dismissed the recusal motion, finding that a reasonable person would understand the necessity of framing preliminary questions with context and would not conclude that the issues were prejudged, as the Referee explicitly stated he remained open to debate and correction.

The Referee also set a schedule for the respondent municipality's proposed motion to dismiss the application.

The applicants, property owners along Lake Erie, brought an application under the Drainage Act alleging the respondent municipality failed to maintain and repair drainage works infrastructure, resulting in damage to their properties.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a case management order to address preliminary issues before requiring the municipality to respond to the applicants' extensive evidence.

The preliminary issues include whether certain historical seawalls have continuing status under the Drainage Act, whether the applicants' damages claims are limited to harm occurring after the expiration of the 45-day notice period under section 79, and whether the notice provided was sufficient.

The order sets a schedule for the exchange of supplementary affidavits, facta, and a video conference hearing to determine these preliminary matters.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a case management video conference to identify parties and address procedural matters regarding an application under the Drainage Act.

One property owner sought and then declined party status, opting to remain an observer.

The Referee issued a supplementary procedural order extending the time for the applicants to deliver supporting affidavits and requiring the respondent municipality to produce specific documents, including council resolutions and engineer's reports related to the Burk Drainage Works.