The Rural Voice, 2019-04, Page 55issue for appeal under the Drainage
Act. However, the Tribunal found that
the landowner provided no reliable
evidence of any quality of
construction issue and, in fact, that the
landowner’s true complaint was about
the design of the drainage works. The
design of the works was not
something that could be appealed to
the Tribunal by that point in time, and
the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The respondent municipality had
communicated to the landowner early
in the appeal process that the appeal
did not actually raise quality of
construction issues, and warned the
landowner that the municipality might
seek costs if the appeal continued.
This communication apparently
resulted in a settlement between the
landowner and the municipality, but
the landowner almost immediately
rescinded the settlement. In its costs
decision, the Tribunal concluded that
the landowner understood the
deficiencies in its appeal, but
continued nevertheless, “using the
appeal process and potential
associated costs as a negotiating tactic
to get the Township to fund some or
all of its private drainage works of
approximately $25,000.”
The Tribunal ordered the appellant
landowner to pay the municipality its
legal costs and engineering costs
related to the appeal incurred after the
failed settlement, and authorized the
municipality to enter the cost award
immediately on the tax roll of any land
owned by the appellant assessed under
the particular municipal drain at issue.
The Tribunal found that the landowner
had failed to produce any evidence in
support of its quality of construction
appeal and, more importantly, that the
landowner had unreasonably reneged
on its settlement with the
municipality. But for this conduct, the
municipality would not have incurred
the costs awarded by the Tribunal. ◊
______________________________
John D. Goudy’s law practice
includes real property and
environmental litigation,
expropriation law, energy regulation,
and regulatory offences. Agrilaw
provides information of interest to the
farming community, not legal advice.
Readers should consult a legal
professional about their particular
circumstances.
APRIL 2019 51
Agrilaw
75 Wellington Street, Clinton, ON
www.huron.com ~ info@huron.com
519-482-8400
Creating partnerships for Healthy Food and Feed
Marketing your crop productions to the global consumer
CANADA’S HAY
PRESERVATIVE
Make Serious Hay!
519-393-5770 |1-800-965-9127
www.juicehay.com
The Juice delivers the
consistency and quality
you need from your hay
preservative.