ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Durocher et al., 2001 ABPC 22

• Judge: Ingram, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 05, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABPC 22;(2001), 283 A.R. 14 (PC)

ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Durocher (2001), 283 A.R. 14 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. FE.097

ATCO Electric Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Dennis Durocher and Phillipe Robitaille (defendants)

(P0090306813; 2001 ABPC 22)

Indexed As: ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Durocher et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Ingram, P.C.J.

January 5, 2001.

Summary:

The defendants admitted liability for breaking off a power pole owned by the plaintiff ATCO Electric Ltd. At issue was damages. The plaintiff stated that its cost to replace the pole was $1,231.36. The pole was 30 years old. A question arose as to whether there should be some adjustment for pre-loss depreciation or post-reinstatement betterment.

The Alberta Provincial Court assessed the plaintiff's damages at $963.36, being the amount claimed for the cost of replacing the pole less the labour and equipment portions of the cost of replacement of the pole in the normal course of business ($268) which the court anticipated would have occurred very shortly.

Damages - Topic 1836

Torts affecting goods - Damage to goods - Measure of damages - The defendants admitted liability for breaking off a power pole owned by the plaintiff ATCO Electric Ltd. - At issue was damages - The plaintiff stated that its cost to replace the pole was $1,231.36 - The pole was 30 years old - A question arose as to whether there should be some adjustment for pre-loss depreciation or post-reinstatement betterment - The Alberta Provincial Court assessed the plaintiff's damages at $963.36, being the amount claimed for the cost of replacing the pole less the labour and equipment portions of the cost of replacement of the pole in the normal course of business ($268) which the court anticipated would have occurred very shortly.

Cases Noticed:

Guelph (City) Board of Light & Heat Commissioners v. United Dairy & Poultry Co-operative Ltd., [1966] 2 O.R. 467 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

The King v. T.T.C., [1946] Ex. C.R. 604, refd to. [para. 7].

Wertman v. Fox (1923), 24 O.W.N. 401 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Busenius v. Pott (1988), 87 A.R. 270 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

North York v. Kert Chemical Industries Inc., [1985] O.J. No. 510, refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Iain Botly, for the plaintiff;

Louis M.H. Belzil, for the defendant.

This action was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before Ingram, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 5, 2001.