ODR 2024

The respondents, the City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Fort Erie, brought motions for summary judgment against the appellant.

The Drainage Referee dismissed both motions.

The Referee extended the limitation period under s. 111 of the Drainage Act to the date the Statement of Claim was delivered, pursuant to s. 113.

The respondents were found liable for all claims by the appellant for damages incurred on or after September 24, 2013, while claims prior to that date were dismissed.

A trial or continuation of the summary judgment motion was ordered to determine the respective proportionate liability of the respondents and to quantify damages.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a case management order establishing a procedural timetable for an application concerning the Point Abino Drain.

The order set deadlines for the exchange of affidavits, expert reports, and documentary production, and scheduled future case management video conferences to address preliminary motions and the addition of affected landowners as parties.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a case management conference to identify intervenor parties and set a schedule for a preliminary constitutional question regarding whether the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is constitutionally exempt from paying assessments under the Drainage Act.

Several parties, including the Attorney General of Ontario, Canadian National Railway Company, and various municipal and agricultural associations, were granted intervenor status.

The Referee also declined CPR's request to reframe the preliminary constitutional question, maintaining the wording established in a previous procedural order.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a pre-hearing conference to begin case management of two applications concerning the Filsinger Municipal Drain.

The Referee issued a procedural order consolidating the applications, setting a timetable for the exchange of documents and affidavits, and scheduling future case management video conferences to address notice to affected parties and other preliminary matters.

A case management conference was held to determine whether to give notice of the action to potentially affected landowners assessed for the Forsyth Drain, or to defer notice until after preliminary issues motions are heard.

The Acting Drainage Referee ordered that notice be deferred, as the preliminary issues raised by the municipality (including jurisdiction over claims for injurious affection, damages under the Municipal Act, and negligence) would not affect the assessed landowners.

A schedule was established for the exchange of motion materials and the hearing of the preliminary issues.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent brought an application for orders authorizing the crossing of a Canadian Pacific Railway right-of-way by a municipal drain.

CPR raised a constitutional question, arguing that the Drainage Act is constitutionally inapplicable to federal railways.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a procedural order scheduling a case management conference to address preliminary constitutional questions, including whether CPR is exempt from paying Drainage Act assessments and whether the Municipality has the authority to pay or exempt CPR from such assessments.

The Referee directed the Municipality to provide notice of the proceeding to other municipalities, railway operators, and the Attorneys General to allow them to seek intervenor status.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a case management video conference to organize the hearing of the merits of an application under the Drainage Act.

The Referee added the petitioner as a party, set deadlines for document disclosure and the delivery of witness affidavits, and scheduled a further case management hearing to finalize the hearing dates and issues.

The applicant challenged the validity of a Drainage Act petition and the resulting Engineer's Report for the proposed Jananna Municipal Drain.

At a case management conference, the Acting Drainage Referee determined that the respondent Township and the Engineer had sufficiently complied with prior document production orders to qualify to provide evidence.

The Referee issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the Township's responding materials, establishing a process for giving notice to affected property owners, and scheduling a further case management video conference to consider adding parties and setting a hearing schedule.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a case management conference to establish a procedural schedule for an application challenging the validity of a petition and an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act.

The Referee ordered the Township and the Engineer to produce specific documents, noting that the Township's failure to produce documents to date was an abuse of process.

The Township's motion for procedural directions was dismissed.

The Referee set deadlines for document production and scheduled further case management conferences.

The plaintiff brought a claim for damages against the municipalities for failure to maintain a municipal drain, resulting in flooding of his farm.

The municipalities moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred due to lack of proper notice under sections 79(2) and 111 of the Drainage Act.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the motions for summary judgment regarding notice, finding that the notices provided were adequate despite not being in a prescribed form.

However, the Referee limited the plaintiff's damages to the period after he acquired legal title to the property on September 24, 2013, dismissing claims for damages prior to that date.

The Township of Wilmot filed a motion record seeking procedural directions in an application challenging the validity of a petition and engineer's report under the Drainage Act.

The Acting Drainage Referee noted that a case management video conference had already been scheduled to address these matters.

The Referee criticized the Township's counsel for failing to provide conflict dates and for failing to produce required documentation under the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Referee ordered that the Township's motion be heard at the already scheduled case management conference and set out procedural rules for the video conference.