Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., (1978) 23 N.R. 298 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Spence, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 03, 1978
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1978), 23 N.R. 298 (SCC);90 DLR (3d) 481;1978 CanLII 42 (SCC);23 NR 298;8 CPC 100;[1978] SCJ No 86 (QL);[1979] 1 SCR 275

Berardinelli v. OHC (1978), 23 N.R. 298 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corporation et al.

Indexed As: Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Spence, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

October 3, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of the action by a tenant of a housing development of the Ontario Housing Corporation against the Corporation for damages suffered after the tenant slipped and fell on ice and snow in a common area of the development. The action was brought more than 6 months after the fall and the corporation pleaded the protection of the 6 month limitation period in the Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 374. The tenant moved for the preliminary determination of the issue of whether s. 11 applied. The Ontario High Court in a judgment reported 13 O.R.(2d) 354; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 56, held that s. 11 was applicable and that the tenant's action was barred. On the tenant's appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 15 O.R.(2d) 217; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 348, dismissed the appeal. The tenant appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and held that the tenant's action was not barred. The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 11 was inapplicable to the Corporation's management function of snow removal, because that function was not a "public duty" within the meaning of s. 11, but was a private executive or administrative action. See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Martland, J., dissenting, was of the opinion that snow removal was part of the function of managing the project, which was one of the powers of the Corporation under the Housing Development Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 213, s. 6(2) and was "a public duty" within the meaning of s. 11. See paragraphs 25 to 52.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 8

Interpretation of limitation provisions - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a limitation of actions provision, which circumscribes the rights of action of the citizen, should be strictly interpreted and any ambiguity found should be resolved in favor of the person whose right of action is being truncated - See paragraph 10.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7584

Claims against the Crown - Applicability of limitation period - Exercise of statutory or public duty - What constitutes - A tenant of a housing development of the Ontario Housing Corporation brought an action against the Corporation for damages suffered after the tenant slipped and fell on ice and snow in a common area of the development - The action was brought more than six months after the fall and the Corporation pleaded the protection of the six month limitation period in s. 11 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 374 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 11 was inapplicable to the Corporation's management function of snow removal because that function was not a public duty within the meaning of s. 11, but was a private executive or administrative function - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the tenant's action was not barred by s. 11 - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Bradford Corporation v. Myers, [1916] 1 A.C. 242, folld. [para. 11].

McGonegal et al. v. Gray et al., [1952] 2 S.C.R. 274, folld. [para. 12].

Griffiths v. Smith, [1941] A.C. 170, consd. [para. 18]; refd to. [para. 43].

Edwards v. Metropolitan Water Board, [1922] 1 K.B. 291, refd to. [para. 40].

Clarke v. St. Helen's Borough Council (1916), 85 L.J.K.B. 17, refd to. [para. 47].

Statutes Noticed:

Housing Development Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 213, sect. 6(2) [paras. 2, 33].

Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 225, sect. 30.28 [para. 11].

Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 374, sect. 11 [paras. 3, 27].

Counsel:

J. Edgar Sexton, for the appellant;

Duncan Finlayson, Q.C., for the respondents.

This case was heard on February 23, 1978, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, SPENCE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 3, 1978, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

ESTEY, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 24;

MARTLAND, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 25 to 52.

LASKIN, C.J.C., SPENCE, DICKSON, BEETZ and PRATTE, JJ., concurred with ESTEY, J.