Paul Courey

The appellant appealed an engineer's report regarding the 8th Concession East Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the Minutes of Settlement, which amended the assessment schedule and relocated a borrow pit, and ordered the engineer and the municipality to modify the report, tender documents, and by-law accordingly.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal regarding the 8th Concession East Drain.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal involved allegations of negligence and substandard work related to a 1991 repair, which were also the subject of a motion before the Referee.

To avoid duplicate proceedings and potentially conflicting decisions, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and deferred to the Referee's jurisdiction to determine the necessity of the work, cost allocation, and liability.

The appellant appealed his assessment under the Drainage Act for work on the Mud Creek and Sutherland Drain.

He argued that the $8,350 assessed against his property as a benefit for bank stabilization and rip-rap installation should instead be charged to upstream owners as an injuring liability, claiming the erosion was caused by increased water flow from upstream tile drainage.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the benefit assessment was fair and that the appellant received a special benefit from the specific work requested to prevent land loss.

The appellant, Robert Meersseman, appealed a decision of the Farm Products Marketing Commission denying his request for a license to process vegetables in 1997.

The appellant had applied for a personal license after his company, Boneta Foods, was denied a license.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and Boneta Foods were indistinguishable for the purposes of obtaining a license, and that the personal application was an attempt to bypass the denial of the corporate license.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, Boneta Foods and Robert Meersseman, appealed decisions denying them a processor licence and a producer licence for the 1997 crop year.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of the processor licence to Boneta Foods, finding a history of non-compliance with payment terms and poor financial management.

However, the Tribunal granted Mr. Meersseman a producer licence on the condition that he obtain a contract with a licensed processor, noting that late applications had been accommodated in the past.

Several landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Spring-Water Evergreen Beach Drainage System under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the proposed drainage works were too costly, the route should be modified, and the assessments were inappropriate.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the traditional flow route recommended in the engineer's report was the proper choice to provide a sufficient outlet for County Road 50.

The Tribunal confirmed the allowances and assessments with minor technical changes regarding the water main and beach roads.

The appellants appealed the design and assessments in an engineer's report for the repair and improvement of a municipal drain under the Drainage Act.

They argued that the drain's outlet into the river was insufficient, causing erosion and flooding on their property, and requested that the drain be relocated or that they receive an allowance for the insufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the flooding and erosion were caused by the river backing up, not by the water flowing from the drain.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to justify the delay and expense of investigating alternative routes or adjusting the assessments.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal under section 5(2) of the Drainage Act from the municipality's decision not to appoint an engineer to prepare a report to improve a drain.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality appointed an engineer.

The appellant requested the Tribunal set aside the appointment and appoint its own engineer due to the municipality's historical delays.

The Tribunal declined to interfere, noting the municipality had complied with the Act by appointing a qualified engineer and had committed to proceeding expeditiously with the report and interim maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.