Mr. LaFontaine

The appellants appealed the Engineer's Report for the repair and improvement of the Esseltine Drain under sections 48 and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellants, who own agricultural properties, argued that the proposed drainage works provided no benefit to their lands and that their assessments were disproportionately high compared to the urban and greenhouse developments contributing to the increased water flow and erosion.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent municipality's engineers, finding that the assessments were calculated using standard methodologies and were fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence to support modifying the Engineer's Report or the assessments, and dismissed the appeals.

In a criminal appeal concerning circumstantial proof of possession of child pornography, the Court clarified that alternative inferences consistent with innocence may arise from evidence or absence of evidence, but must be reasonable rather than speculative.

The Court held there is no mandatory formula for circumstantial-evidence instructions, though juries should be cautioned against inferential gap-filling and premature conclusions.

Reading the trial reasons as a whole, the Court found no reversible legal error in the treatment of inferences, burden, or standard of proof.

The guilty verdict was held reasonable on the totality of the evidence.

The acquittal was set aside and Charter ss. 8 and 24(2) issues were remanded to the provincial appellate court.