Other Tribunals - ODR

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law related to a drainage project and brought a motion for procedural orders, including examinations for discovery of the drainage engineer and production of documents.

The respondent argued the appeal was out of time under s. 47(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant clarified the appeal was solely to quash the by-law, not a s. 47(1) appeal.

The Drainage Referee granted the motion for discovery and document production, but restricted the scope to issues involving the petition and the conduct of proceedings, excluding matters of design, assessment, and allowances.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages against the municipality after heavy rainfall caused a municipal drain to overflow and flood his property.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality was negligent in maintaining the drain and in installing an undersized culvert.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff failed to provide adequate written notice of disrepair as required by section 79 of the Drainage Act.

Furthermore, the Referee held the municipality was not negligent in construction, as the culvert met the two-year storm standard required for municipal drains, and the plaintiff failed to prove the storm's intensity.

The Referee ordered the municipality to prepare a preliminary drainage report to explore solutions to the flooding.

The appellants, assessed owners on the Tunnel Drain, appealed a resolution and by-law passed by the Township of Romney to levy the costs of work done on the drain.

The central issue was whether the work, which involved plastering the interior of the tunnel with concrete, constituted a 'repair' under section 75 of the Drainage Act or an 'improvement' under section 78.

The Drainage Referee found that the work was an improvement because it modified the drainage works to increase its effectiveness, involved significant complexity and cost, and went beyond mere restoration.

Consequently, the Township erred by proceeding without an engineer's report and the required procedural safeguards.

The Referee ordered that the assessments on private lands be reduced by 40%, with the difference to be paid from the Township's general revenues.

The Ontario Drainage Referee heard an appeal regarding the repair and improvement of the No. 4 Drain.

The appointed Drainage Engineer provided a preliminary report recommending limited work to control erosion and the provision of insufficient outlet allowances to affected owners.

The Appellants presented alternative engineering proposals for more extensive and costly stabilization of the ravine.

The Referee ordered that the final Drainage Report be based on the appointed Drainage Engineer's preliminary report, noting that the Ministry would not fund the Appellants' more elaborate proposals.

The Referee also ordered specific modifications, including basing allowances on a land value of $1,000 per acre and increasing allowances for insufficient outlet.

The Township of Howard appealed a decision of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal that had altered the assessment of costs for repairing a municipal drain.

The Referee found that the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice and created a reasonable apprehension of bias by conducting a pre-hearing site visit, forming a tentative opinion before hearing evidence, and relying on unsworn testimony from an unidentified witness.

The Referee set aside the Tribunal's decision and restored the original assessment prepared by the drainage engineer.

The applicant, on behalf of several assessed landowners, brought an application against the Township of Colchester South regarding the Bassett Municipal Drain.

The applicant alleged that the Township was negligent in supervising repair and reconstruction work in 1982, resulting in defective construction that required subsequent remedial work.

The Township assessed the costs of this remedial work and related engineering reports to the landowners.

The Drainage Referee found that the application was brought within the limitation period.

On the merits, the Referee held that the Township's Drainage Superintendent was negligent in supervising the 1982 construction.

Consequently, the Township was liable for the damages under section 118(2) of the Drainage Act.

The Referee ordered that the assessed owners be fully reimbursed for their share of the repair costs, the cost of one engineering report, and 50% of a second report, along with any interest or penalties.

The appellant Township applied for an order under the Drainage Act to remove an earthen dam placed in a municipal drain by the respondents.

The respondents admitted to placing the dam to draw attention to severe erosion on their property.

The Drainage Referee found that the dam posed an immediate risk of severe flooding and damage to upstream tile drains due to freezing.

The Referee ordered the immediate removal of the dam and directed the Township to commission an engineering report to address the downstream erosion issues and explore potential funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

The parties to a drainage dispute reached minutes of settlement.

The Drainage Referee ordered the defendants to move and spread topsoil under the plaintiff's supervision, and to pay a total of $1,500 to the plaintiff.

The action and crossclaims were otherwise dismissed without costs.

The applicants sought damages and other relief after the respondent municipality installed a supplementary plastic drain across their property, which worsened drainage and caused their basement to flood.

The Drainage Referee found that the municipality erred by not appointing an engineer under s. 78 of the Drainage Act, as the work constituted an improvement rather than a repair.

The bylaw authorizing the work was quashed, and the municipality was ordered to refund payments, appoint an engineer, and pay $1,958.31 in damages for the flooded basement.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report proposing improvements to a municipal drain, arguing that replacing a grassed waterway with an additional tile drain would reduce capacity and cause soil erosion on his property.

The respondent municipality challenged the appellant's status to appeal, which the Referee dismissed, finding the potential for erosion sufficient to grant standing.

On the merits, the Referee held that the drain was no longer a natural watercourse, rendering section 14(1) of the Drainage Act inapplicable.

The Referee accepted the engineer's conclusion that the proposed changes constituted an improvement and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The parties settled an action regarding damages arising from the maintenance or repair of a municipal drain.

The settlement required the respondent municipality to pay the appellant damages and costs.

The parties left the allocation of the costs to the discretion of the Drainage Referee.

The Referee determined that because the damages and costs arose from an improper action, neglect, default, or omission by municipal employees, the costs should be borne by the municipality and paid out of its general funds rather than levied against the municipal drain ratepayers.

The City of Stratford brought a motion to dismiss an application to quash a municipal by-law authorizing drainage works.

The applicants, a group of landowners, had submitted letters and petitions objecting to the by-law.

The Drainage Referee held that the letters and petitions did not constitute proper applications to quash the by-law under the Drainage Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to file the required notice of intention within the prescribed time limits.

The motion was granted, the application to quash was dismissed, and the by-law was declared valid and binding.

The applicants appealed to quash a municipal drainage by-law, arguing that the petition for the drainage works was not signed by a sufficient number of owners or representing sufficient hectarage as required by the Drainage Act.

The Drainage Referee reviewed the statutory history and the engineer's role in determining the 'area requiring drainage'.

The Referee concluded that the engineer properly determined the area requiring drainage and that the petition was validly signed by a majority of owners in that area.

The appeal was dismissed and the by-law upheld.

The applicants brought a motion to quash a provisional drainage by-law adopted by the respondent township, alleging non-compliance with the Drainage Act.

The respondent argued that the motion was premature as the by-law had not been finally passed.

The Drainage Referee held that there is no right under the Drainage Act to move to quash a provisional by-law, as it is merely a proposed by-law and does not have the force of law until finally passed.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The appellant landowner sued the township and two engineering firms for negligence in the design and construction of a municipal drain, claiming damages for erosion and crop loss.

The action was referred to the Drainage Referee.

The Referee found no negligence or design deficiencies by the engineers, accepting expert evidence that the tile sizes and swale capacity were adequate.

The Referee concluded that the damage was caused by the appellant's own conduct in interfering with the contractor and preventing the completion of the swale.

The claim for damages was dismissed, but a mandatory injunction was granted ordering the township to complete the drain in accordance with the by-law.

The appellant appealed to the Drainage Referee to quash By-law 6-76 passed by the respondent township under the Drainage Act.

The appellant's initial notices of appeal were either premature or filed incorrectly.

However, the Referee found that the by-law, which purported to reassess maintenance costs under section 51 of the Drainage Act, improperly included new construction (the 10th Sideroad Branch) that was not part of the original drainage scheme.

The Referee held that section 51 only permits reassessment of existing drainage works, not new construction.

Consequently, the township lacked the authority to pass the by-law, and it was quashed.

The applicant brought an action against the respondent townships for damages arising from the non-repair of a municipal drain.

The parties reached minutes of settlement, which provided that the Township of North Elmsley would repair the drain in accordance with an engineering report, subject to specific conditions regarding supervision, excavation costs, and spoil spreading.

The settlement also required the Township of North Elmsley to pay the applicant $4,500 for damages and costs, and required the applicant to pay original construction assessments.

The appellant applied for an order dismissing the action without costs.

Upon reading the consent of all parties and hearing from counsel, the Drainage Referee ordered that the action be dismissed without costs.

The appellant brought a motion for an order extending the time period required by the Drainage Act for an appeal to the Drainage Referee and for a procedure order.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the motion and made no order as to costs.

The appellants appealed their assessment for a municipal drainage works to the Drainage Referee.

The respondent municipality argued the appeal was invalid for failing to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 36 of the Drainage Act.

The Referee found that the appellants' written notice was intended as an appeal to the Court of Revision regarding their assessment, not an appeal to the Referee regarding the validity of the engineer's report.

Furthermore, the appellants failed to serve the notice on the initiating municipality.

The appeal was dismissed.