Executive Summary
A frequent challenge for municipal councils and drainage superintendents is dealing with assessment appeals based on a landowner’s personal belief that their assessment is “too high.” Landowners often argue that technical factors—such as Runoff Factors or Land Use Factors—should be lowered based on their lay opinion.
In Machan v. Minto (Town), the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (AFRAAT) provided a clear precedent that protects municipal reports: An Engineer’s professional opinion regarding assessment factors cannot be overturned by a landowner’s lay opinion. Without competing expert evidence, the Engineer’s report stands.
This decision reinforces the robustness of the Drainage Act process and provides municipalities with confidence when defending technical assessments against subjective challenges.
The Case: Machan v. Minto (Town), 2022 ONAFRAAT
Citation: Machan v. Minto (Town), (File No. 018Municipal Drain21) Full Decision: View on CanLII
The Context The Town of Minto initiated improvements to Municipal Drain No. 69. The Appellants, owners of a property designated largely as Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) and used for recreation, appealed their assessments.
The Dispute The Appellants raised several arguments under Section 54 of the Drainage Act:
- Runoff Factor: They argued the Land Use Factor (Runoff Factor) of 0.6 applied by the Engineer was too high and should be reduced to 0.5, citing that the land was a wetland/woodlot.
- Benefit Assessment: They argued they received no benefit from the work as the land was recreational.
- Double Assessment: They claimed they were being assessed twice for the same land on different sections of the drain.
The Decision The Tribunal largely dismissed the appeal regarding the technical calculations but allowed a minor adjustment on the Benefit assessment.
Strategic Takeaways for Municipal Administrators
This decision highlights the high threshold required to successfully challenge a professional engineer’s report.
1. Lay Opinion Cannot Trump Professional Engineering
The Appellants argued that a runoff factor of 0.5 was “industry standard” compared to the 0.6 used by the Engineer. However, they appeared without their own engineering expert.
The Tribunal’s ruling was unequivocal:
“The Appellants did not introduce any admissible evidence to support their argument… They did not submit any engineering reports nor did they call an engineer or other professional evidence to challenge Mr. Dietrich’s evidence.”
The Lesson: When a landowner appeals on technical grounds (coefficients, factors, hydraulic capacity), they must bring an expert to the fight. If the Municipality’s Engineer is the only qualified expert in the room, their methodology should prevail.
2. Outlet Liability vs. Benefit on Wetlands
While the Tribunal upheld the “Outlet Liability” (the cost for water flowing off the land), they did strike the “Benefit Assessment” (the cost for improved land value/use).
The Tribunal reasoned that because the land was a wetland with no agricultural potential, and no physical work was occurring immediately adjacent to it, the property did not receive a “betterment” (Benefit). The Lesson: Municipalities should review Benefit assessments on PSWs carefully. While these lands certainly contribute water (Outlet Liability), arguing that a swamp is “improved” by a drain can be a losing battle.
3. Clarity on “Double Assessments”
The Appellants believed they were being double-billed because their total acreage appeared on assessments for both the “Main Drain” and “Drain A.” The Tribunal clarified that this is standard apportionment: if water flows from “Drain A” into the “Main Drain,” the land is liable for a share of both.
The Lesson: This is a communication issue, not a legal one. Drainage Superintendents can often avoid appeals by explaining the “flow path” concept to landowners during the on-site meeting, clarifying that paying for downstream sections is a statutory obligation, not a math error.
Action Items for Municipal Staff
To effectively manage similar disputes:
- Pre-Hearing Preparation: If an appellant indicates they intend to challenge technical factors (like runoff coefficients), have your legal counsel confirm whether they have served an expert report. If not, be prepared to argue that their evidence is inadmissible opinion.
- Review PSW Assessments: Ask your Engineer to explicitly justify any “Benefit” assessments placed on wetlands. If the “Benefit” is negligible ($1,000 in this case), it may be strategic to reallocate it to the road or general levy to avoid an appeal.
- Support Your Engineer: Ensure your Engineer is available to testify. In Machan, the credibility of the Engineer as a qualified expert witness was the deciding factor that preserved the assessment schedule.
About the Author: Eric Florjancic is an Associate Lawyer at Legal Focus LLP. He acts for municipalities and private clients in civil litigation, property disputes, and administrative law matters. Eric helps municipal teams navigate the complex balance between statutory duties and landowner relations.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and is intended for informational purposes only. Municipalities should consult with their solicitor regarding specific active files.
Contact Eric Florjancic | Phone: 226-674-1120 | Email: [email protected]