The appellant municipality appealed a Drainage Referee's order denying it costs and sought a declaration that a referee who conducts a pre-hearing cannot preside at the hearing.
The respondent landowners cross-appealed the Referee's finding that a proposed drainage project was an 'improvement' under the Drainage Act rather than a new drainage works requiring a petition.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the costs award and holding that a declaration was unnecessary given existing rules.
The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the Referee correctly distinguished prior case law and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the project was an improvement despite an increase in capacity.
