Blog of law articles

(BY HUGO)

In Dionne v. Gatineau (Municipality of) (in French), residents of a municipality claim damages against the municipality in extra-contractual liability before the Court of Appeal. The claim was rejected in first instance.

The defendant municipality delivered construction permits for new developments on its territory between the beginning of the 1970s and the end of the 1980s.

Instead of requiring particularised percolation tests, localisation plans from a land surveyor and an attestation from an engineer for each septic tank installed on a terrain as the by-laws required, the municipality issue construction permits in bulk and relied on an engineer who was hired by the developers, who ignored the by-laws, and who did not performed the required tests.

The Court of Appeal deals quickly with the element of fault. The municipality deliberately violated its own municipal by-laws on sanitary installations for private residences when issuing the construction permits, thus committing a fault. According to the Court, «the conduct of a municipality cannot be considered reasonable when it decides willingly not to follow its own regulations, or in other words, not to follow the law.» (§15) [Rough translation]

The Court of Appeal identifies the element of causality as more problematic: does the evidence establish, on the balance of probability, that damages suffered by the plaintiffs from the 1990s onward are the result of the defendant’s fault? The Court identifies many causes for the disgorgement of the septic tanks that led to health hazards and to the plaintiffs’ damages, among which soil conditions, inadequate construction and maintenance of sanitary installations... However, the Court concludes that the municipal contribution to the damages claimed rises to 75%, as these alternative causes justify the enactment and respect of the municipal by-laws in the first place.

Of note is the fact that this judgement serves to settle 103 claims through 5 representative files jointly selected by the parties’ attorneys. Causality was therefore examined «globally» by the Court. In this case, it is possible to argue that such a global approach adopted in «Justice's best interest» alters the assessment of evidence on the balance of probability in each claim with respect to causality.

This case can be linked to Beaudin v. Sept-Îles (Ville de) (in French), which was rendered in 2008 by the Superior Court and where another municipality was involved in a dispute relating to sanitation services.