Mr. Todgham

The appellants appealed an engineer's report adopted by the Town of Dunnville for the proposed Sutor Drain.

The appeal raised two main issues: the sufficiency of the petition under the Drainage Act and the assessment of upstream riparian owners for outlet liability.

The Referee found that the petition was insufficient because the engineer expanded the drainage area without ensuring the petition had the requisite signatures, and failed to report this deficiency to the municipal council.

Furthermore, the Referee held that the engineer applied an incorrect legal principle by failing to consider whether upstream owners were exempt from outlet liability due to their riparian right to drain into a natural watercourse.

Consequently, the engineer's report was set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellants.

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.