Ed Dries

The plaintiff brought a motion regarding the validity of a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act.

The parties reached a settlement on several issues, leaving the validity of the petition to be determined by the Drainage Referee.

The core issue was the definition of the 'area requiring drainage'.

The Referee considered expert engineering evidence and concluded that the area requiring drainage was primarily located on the plaintiff's lands, based on physical characteristics and agricultural land use.

As the plaintiff owned more than 60% of the area requiring drainage, the petition was declared valid with only the plaintiff's signature.

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.