Mr. Kuntze

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that declared the respondents had a right of way "in, over, and upon" a portion of the appellant's property, including the right to maintain drainage infrastructure (a catch basin and lateral pipe).

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate assistance and by improperly interpreting the scope of the easement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no procedural unfairness and that the drainage infrastructure constituted an ancillary right reasonably necessary to the use and enjoyment of the right of way.

The appellant appealed a municipal drainage project, arguing that the initiating petition was deficient due to property misdescriptions, unauthorized signatures, and the failure of all joint owners to sign.

The Drainage Referee held that while minor property misdescriptions do not invalidate a petition, signatures by non-owners without clear written authorization are invalid.

Furthermore, following previous jurisprudence, the Referee determined that all joint owners must sign a drainage petition.

Because twelve signatures were found to be faulty, the petition was deemed insufficient and the by-law was quashed.

The appellant appealed an engineer's report proposing improvements to a municipal drain, arguing that replacing a grassed waterway with an additional tile drain would reduce capacity and cause soil erosion on his property.

The respondent municipality challenged the appellant's status to appeal, which the Referee dismissed, finding the potential for erosion sufficient to grant standing.

On the merits, the Referee held that the drain was no longer a natural watercourse, rendering section 14(1) of the Drainage Act inapplicable.

The Referee accepted the engineer's conclusion that the proposed changes constituted an improvement and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.