ODR 2003

The Ontario Drainage Referee determined the costs to be awarded following the dismissal of the applicants' drainage application.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the applicants argued for fixed costs of $2,000.

The Referee awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the applicants were reasonably pursuing the matter after it was referred back by the Divisional Court, and that landowners should not be discouraged from exercising their legitimate rights of appeal in drainage matters.

The respondent's bill of costs was approved with an adjustment to the hourly rate for travel, plus an additional $600 for written submissions.

The appellants challenged the construction of a municipal drain, arguing that it was not taken to a sufficient outlet as required by Section 15 of the Drainage Act and seeking repairs under Section 79.

The Ontario Drainage Referee dismissed the claim for repairs, finding the municipality was justified in its inaction due to ongoing litigation.

On the issue of sufficient outlet, the Referee held that Section 15 must be read in conjunction with Section 32, which permits a drainage scheme to proceed with an insufficient outlet provided damages are paid to downstream landowners when a sufficient outlet is not economically feasible.

The appeal was dismissed and the construction by-law was ordered to be implemented.

The appellant appealed the validity of a drainage petition signed by the Road Superintendent under Section 4(1)(c) of the Drainage Act, arguing the true purpose was to provide drainage for a subdivision rather than the road.

The Drainage Referee found that there was a genuine need for proper drainage of the roads and ditches to prevent deterioration and address safety concerns.

The Referee held that Section 4(1)(c) should be interpreted liberally, as road authorities have special drainage problems and are accountable to the public.

The appeal was dismissed and the petition was confirmed as valid.