Valerie M'Garry

The Municipality of Bluewater appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which had granted the respondent farmer an exemption from the minimum distance separation requirements in the municipality's zoning by-law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to interfere with land use planning matters, which fall exclusively under the Planning Act.

The Board's authority is limited to protecting farmers from nuisance claims regarding normal farm practices, not granting zoning variances.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the Brown/Reid Drainage Works.

The appellant argued that the costs outweighed the benefits, alternative designs were not considered, and his property was unfairly assessed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the design and cost-benefit, finding the proposed works practical and cost-beneficial.

However, the Tribunal varied the assessment, reducing the appellant's benefit assessment and increasing the assessment of an upstream landowner who benefited more from the improved outlet.

The Tribunal also ordered the inclusion of fish refuge areas as recommended by the engineer.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the repair and improvement of the Washington Municipal Drain.

The appellant raised concerns about assessments, allowances, cost-benefit justification, and environmental impacts, but refused to call evidence or submit to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, alleging bias and filing a mid-hearing appeal to the Drainage Referee.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional and bias challenges, proceeded with the hearing, and accepted the engineer's overwhelming evidence that the drainage works were necessary and the assessments fair.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay $8,000 in costs to the municipality due to his highly adversarial and unmeritorious approach.

The appellant requested an adjournment of the hearing sine die because he elected to file appeals from previous Tribunal decisions to the Referee, and intended to bring an application to the Referee for a declaration that the proposed drainage work does not comply with the Drainage Act.

The respondent and other represented parties opposed the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the application to adjourn, noting its obligation to deal with matters fairly and expeditiously in the absence of a valid order of prohibition.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the Lewis and Maple Avenue South Drains.

The Tribunal confirmed the assessments for the Lewis Drain as modified by the Court of Revision.

For the Maple Avenue South Drain, the Tribunal found the work was required but modified the assessment schedule to reflect that the major factor contributing to the need for the work was the construction of berms by one of the appellants, assessing a special benefit to that owner.