ODR 1992

The respondent Township brought a motion to summarily dismiss appeals filed by Horne, Dempsey, and Vanderschot regarding a drainage report, arguing the appeals were an abuse of process.

The Drainage Referee held that he had inherent jurisdiction to dismiss appeals devoid of merit.

The Referee determined he lacked jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's procedural decisions or its directive for a new report.

The Vanderschot appeal was dismissed as its grounds were mooted by the Tribunal's decision.

The Horne and Dempsey appeals were permitted to proceed, but restricted to grounds arising from the newly directed Engineer's Report.

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.