I don’t know to which “canon of English” you’re referring, and I don’t particularly care. I don’t think it sounds or looks right to end a sentence or clause with a preposition, like “to.”
But practically speaking, it all depends on context. You hint at this by saying your example “sounds” right. When chatting at the water cooler, “to which you refer” would sound a tad pedantic. (Although if you are a real pedant, e.g. an English professor, it would probably be expected of you.)
And in fiction, poetry, and other forms of expressive writing, almost anything goes (although you will generally do better to know the rules before you break them).
But I maintain that in formal written English – a report, a memo, an article for general publication – ending with a preposition “sounds” sloppy, and should be avoided. My authority? I’m a professional editor and writer, and I’m never wrong about these things.
That is all.
============
On preview, I notice that Harpo above is calling me an illiterate pedantic idiot. I won’t argue the point. While I’m not firmly against split infinitives (my understanding is that the prohibition derives from the fact that it is not possible to split infinitives in Latin, therefore you shouldn’t do it in English – a silly reason for a “rule.”), I think that both they and terminal prepostions should be avoided if one can do so without “torturing the sentence.”
Good writing says what it is trying to say without slowing down, confusing, or annoying the reader. A tortured sentence, by definition, fails that test. But in my experience, it is almost never impossible to effectively recast a sentence that ends with a preposition or splits an infinitive. (Sorry, that should be “to recast effectively.”)
While I’ve got my rant going, I’d just like to express my dismay with the apparently total supplanting of the phrase “in which” with “where.” As in, “The government issued a report where it stated that…”
It should be “…a report IN WHICH it stated…” It’s a report! There is no THERE there!!!
