ODR 2023

The applicants, who were self-represented, were previously awarded partial indemnity costs against the respondent Service Board.

The applicants sought costs for their own time, limited retainer legal fees, and disbursements.

The Acting Drainage Referee fixed the applicants' costs at $6,510.99, allowing $500 per day for hearing and preparation time, discounted limited retainer legal fees, and proven disbursements.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the applicants for freedom of information request fees.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a pre-hearing conference to establish a case management timetable and procedural protocols for an action concerning the Forsyth Drain.

The resulting order set deadlines for the delivery of pleadings, document production, and the exchange of municipal infrastructure records.

The order also established detailed protocols for conducting future case management conferences and the hearing on the merits via video conference, including rules for witness testimony and the entering of exhibits.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a case management order setting a timetable for the exchange of materials and scheduling future case management conferences.

The underlying application involves a jurisdictional dispute between the provincial Drainage Act and federal railway jurisdiction regarding proposed drainage works crossing a Canadian Pacific Railway right-of-way.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die of the proceedings to continue settlement negotiations in a drainage dispute.

The Acting Drainage Referee denied the request, emphasizing that the parties must either achieve a settlement or proceed with the application process.

A comprehensive case management order was issued, establishing a schedule for the exchange of materials, expert reports, and setting a five-day video conference hearing to address both the respondent's preliminary motion to dismiss under the Limitations Act and the application on the merits.

The applicants filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act to address surface water and groundwater issues affecting their property.

The respondent's appointed engineer determined the petition was invalid, concluding the applicants did not own 60% of the area requiring drainage by relying on property boundaries rather than topographical contours.

The Drainage Referee rejected the engineer's findings as patently wrong, holding that the area requiring drainage must be defined by physical topographical features and the elevation of the outlet.

The Referee accepted the applicants' topographical data, found their property constituted more than 60% of the area requiring drainage, and declared the petition valid.

The Ontario Drainage Referee issued an amended procedural order setting the timetable for the exchange of affidavits of documents, expert reports, and examinations for discovery in a drainage dispute.

A procedural hearing was scheduled to set a trial date to determine liability, damages, and proposals for the extension of the drain.

The Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation (RVCF) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal seeking the extension of a municipal drain through its property, which is a Provincially Significant Wetland acquired through the federal Ecological Gifts Program.

The RVCF argued that the Drainage Act could not unilaterally direct the alteration of the property due to a Landholding Agreement and federal tax implications regarding a change in use.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the motion, finding that the potential tax consequences under the Income Tax Act did not trigger federal paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity, and that the Drainage Act is an applicable provincial law that must be complied with.

The Drainage Referee issued procedural directions following a hearing regarding the Hobbs Municipal Drain Outlet Extension.

The Referee addressed a withdrawn proposal to remove the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority as a party and directed the Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation to bring a formal motion regarding its challenge to the Referee's jurisdiction.

The Referee also provided directions to various unrepresented and added parties regarding the filing of claims for damages or assessments for lack of outlet under the Drainage Act, urging them to retain drainage engineers and legal counsel.

The Drainage Referee issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of motions, statements of claim, affidavits of documents, expert reports, and examinations for discovery in a dispute concerning the Hobbs Drain.

The order directed specific parties to file claims for damages and remediation proposals, and set deadlines for a jurisdictional motion by the Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation and an alternate route proposal by the appellant.