Ostrom v. Sills

Ostrom v. Sills

Defendants lawfully exercised their right to build on their land and to cut off the part of the culvert projecting onto their property; the waters were mere surface water collected by municipal drains and not a natural watercourse; therefore defendants were not liable to plaintiff for the resulting damage and any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1898) 28 SCR 485
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Byron Bowen Ostrom; Appellant (assignee): Alexander Beatty; Respondent (defendant): Ephraim G. Sills; Respondent (defendant): John Sills, trading as Sills Bros.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 1898
Procedural Posture
Civil (property) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondents restored.
Legal Topics
Surface Water, Watercourse, Dedication, Obstruction of Drainage, Liability for Damage
Source Language
english
Property Law Easements Municipal Law Water Law Surface Water Watercourse Dedication Obstruction of Drainage +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Byron Bowen Ostrom

Appellant (plaintiff)

Alexander Beatty

Appellant (assignee)

Ephraim G. Sills

Respondent (defendant)

John Sills, trading as Sills Bros.

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (property) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were liable for damage caused by cutting off the culvert which stopped flow of surface water onto plaintiff's land
  2. 2 Whether the flow constituted a natural watercourse or a public dedication
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's remedy, if any, was against the municipality rather than the adjoining proprietor

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants lawfully exercised their right to build on their land and to cut off the part of the culvert projecting onto their property; the waters were mere surface water collected by municipal drains and not a natural watercourse; therefore defendants were not liable to plaintiff for the resulting damage and any remedy lay against the municipality for the condition of the drain.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondents restored.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs