Ontario Court of the Drainage Referee

The applicant challenged the validity of a Drainage Act petition and the resulting Engineer's Report for the proposed Jananna Municipal Drain.

At a case management conference, the Acting Drainage Referee determined that the respondent Township and the Engineer had sufficiently complied with prior document production orders to qualify to provide evidence.

The Referee issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the Township's responding materials, establishing a process for giving notice to affected property owners, and scheduling a further case management video conference to consider adding parties and setting a hearing schedule.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a case management conference to establish a procedural schedule for an application challenging the validity of a petition and an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act.

The Referee ordered the Township and the Engineer to produce specific documents, noting that the Township's failure to produce documents to date was an abuse of process.

The Township's motion for procedural directions was dismissed.

The Referee set deadlines for document production and scheduled further case management conferences.

The plaintiff brought a claim for damages against the municipalities for failure to maintain a municipal drain, resulting in flooding of his farm.

The municipalities moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred due to lack of proper notice under sections 79(2) and 111 of the Drainage Act.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the motions for summary judgment regarding notice, finding that the notices provided were adequate despite not being in a prescribed form.

However, the Referee limited the plaintiff's damages to the period after he acquired legal title to the property on September 24, 2013, dismissing claims for damages prior to that date.

The Township of Wilmot filed a motion record seeking procedural directions in an application challenging the validity of a petition and engineer's report under the Drainage Act.

The Acting Drainage Referee noted that a case management video conference had already been scheduled to address these matters.

The Referee criticized the Township's counsel for failing to provide conflict dates and for failing to produce required documentation under the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Referee ordered that the Township's motion be heard at the already scheduled case management conference and set out procedural rules for the video conference.

The Acting Drainage Referee held a pre-hearing conference to establish a case management timetable and procedural protocols for an action concerning the Forsyth Drain.

The resulting order set deadlines for the delivery of pleadings, document production, and the exchange of municipal infrastructure records.

The order also established detailed protocols for conducting future case management conferences and the hearing on the merits via video conference, including rules for witness testimony and the entering of exhibits.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a case management order setting a timetable for the exchange of materials and scheduling future case management conferences.

The underlying application involves a jurisdictional dispute between the provincial Drainage Act and federal railway jurisdiction regarding proposed drainage works crossing a Canadian Pacific Railway right-of-way.

The Ontario Drainage Referee issued an amended procedural order setting the timetable for the exchange of affidavits of documents, expert reports, and examinations for discovery in a drainage dispute.

A procedural hearing was scheduled to set a trial date to determine liability, damages, and proposals for the extension of the drain.

The Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation (RVCF) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal seeking the extension of a municipal drain through its property, which is a Provincially Significant Wetland acquired through the federal Ecological Gifts Program.

The RVCF argued that the Drainage Act could not unilaterally direct the alteration of the property due to a Landholding Agreement and federal tax implications regarding a change in use.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the motion, finding that the potential tax consequences under the Income Tax Act did not trigger federal paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity, and that the Drainage Act is an applicable provincial law that must be complied with.

The applicants, who were self-represented, were previously awarded partial indemnity costs against the respondent Service Board.

The applicants sought costs for their own time, limited retainer legal fees, and disbursements.

The Acting Drainage Referee fixed the applicants' costs at $6,510.99, allowing $500 per day for hearing and preparation time, discounted limited retainer legal fees, and proven disbursements.

The respondent was also ordered to reimburse the applicants for freedom of information request fees.

The Drainage Referee issued procedural directions following a hearing regarding the Hobbs Municipal Drain Outlet Extension.

The Referee addressed a withdrawn proposal to remove the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority as a party and directed the Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation to bring a formal motion regarding its challenge to the Referee's jurisdiction.

The Referee also provided directions to various unrepresented and added parties regarding the filing of claims for damages or assessments for lack of outlet under the Drainage Act, urging them to retain drainage engineers and legal counsel.

The Drainage Referee issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of motions, statements of claim, affidavits of documents, expert reports, and examinations for discovery in a dispute concerning the Hobbs Drain.

The order directed specific parties to file claims for damages and remediation proposals, and set deadlines for a jurisdictional motion by the Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation and an alternate route proposal by the appellant.

The applicants filed a petition for drainage works under the Drainage Act to address surface water and groundwater issues affecting their property.

The respondent's appointed engineer determined the petition was invalid, concluding the applicants did not own 60% of the area requiring drainage by relying on property boundaries rather than topographical contours.

The Drainage Referee rejected the engineer's findings as patently wrong, holding that the area requiring drainage must be defined by physical topographical features and the elevation of the outlet.

The Referee accepted the applicants' topographical data, found their property constituted more than 60% of the area requiring drainage, and declared the petition valid.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die of the proceedings to continue settlement negotiations in a drainage dispute.

The Acting Drainage Referee denied the request, emphasizing that the parties must either achieve a settlement or proceed with the application process.

A comprehensive case management order was issued, establishing a schedule for the exchange of materials, expert reports, and setting a five-day video conference hearing to address both the respondent's preliminary motion to dismiss under the Limitations Act and the application on the merits.

The respondent Municipality brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' claims for damages, arguing that such claims are not actionable under section 79 of the Drainage Act because they do not meet the common law requirements for 'injurious affection.' The Municipality asserted that the applicants had no common law tort claim (nuisance, negligence, trespass) for damages caused by natural weather phenomena on Lake Erie.

The Acting Drainage Referee dismissed the motion, finding that section 79 of the Act is intended to extend a municipality's liability to an owner whose property is affected by the condition of a drainage works, even if such claims would be denied at common law.

The Referee held that section 79 creates a strict liability statutory cause of action and declined to read into it the requirements of common law torts.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report regarding the Lament Drain, arguing that the petition was invalid and the area requiring drainage was incorrectly defined.

The respondent municipality maintained that the engineer properly determined the area requiring drainage and the petition was valid.

The Drainage Referee found that while the petition itself was valid, the engineer's report contained gross errors, including an incorrect description of the area requiring drainage and an incorrect calculation of statutory requirements.

The Referee also found that the engineer failed to fulfill his duties by not advising the municipal council of a known error in the report.

The Referee ordered the engineer to correct the report in consultation with the appellants' expert engineer and awarded partial indemnity costs to the appellants.

The Acting Drainage Referee issued a procedural order following a case management video conference.

The order established a timetable for the respondent to bring a preliminary motion under the Limitations Act, including dates for the exchange of motion records and factums, and scheduled the motion to be heard by video conference.

The order also set out detailed protocols for conducting video conference hearings and the filing of exhibits.

The applicants brought a motion requesting that the presiding Acting Drainage Referee recuse himself, alleging that he had prejudged facts and law in a previous order setting out preliminary issues.

The Referee dismissed the recusal motion, finding that a reasonable person would understand the necessity of framing preliminary questions with context and would not conclude that the issues were prejudged, as the Referee explicitly stated he remained open to debate and correction.

The Referee also set a schedule for the respondent municipality's proposed motion to dismiss the application.