Bowes v. Edmonton (City) et al., 2003 ABQB 492

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 30, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 492;(2003), 333 A.R. 332 (QB)

Bowes v. Edmonton (2003), 333 A.R. 332 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JN.095

Kenneth Bowes & Ruth Bowes (plaintiffs) v. The City of Edmonton and Helena Mary Douglass, C. Hugh Fraser, and Carl H. Rolf, personal representatives of the Estate of Eric Douglass (defendants)

Muriel Skinner, formerly known as Muriel Bryant (plaintiff) v. The City of Edmonton and Helena Mary Douglass, C. Hugh Fraser, and Carl H. Rolf, personal representatives of the Estate of Eric Douglass (defendants)

Constance Reid (plaintiff) v. The City of Edmonton and Helena Mary Douglass, C. Hugh Fraser, and Carl H. Rolf, personal representatives of the Estate of Eric Douglass (defendants)

(Action Nos. 0003-12407, 0003-12408, 0003-12409; 2003 ABQB 492)

Indexed As: Bowes v. Edmonton (City) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

May 30, 2003.

Summary:

Each plaintiff bought land from or through Douglass, before December 1986. When purchasing, each plaintiff was warned about the instability of a bank on the properties. Each plaintiff excavated fill from their property and constructed a house. All of the houses were completed by the end of 1988. In 1999, a landslide destroyed the houses and made the remaining lands unusable. In 2000, each plaintiff sued Douglass's estate. Douglass's estate sought summary judgment based on a limitation defence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the motion and dismissed the actions against Douglass's estate. At the very latest, by the time that their houses were finished, the plaintiffs knew everything they needed to know, and everything they needed to instruct an expert to find out for them, about the potential dangers of fill on the lots acquired from Douglass. The same time frame applied to any representations on subdivision approval, failure to warn about dangerous geological conditions and misrepresentations.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - Each plaintiff bought land from or through Douglass, before December 1986 - When purchasing, each plaintiff was warned about the instability of a bank on the properties - Each plaintiff excavated fill from their property and constructed a house - All of the houses were completed by the end of 1988 - In 1999, a landslide destroyed the houses and made the remaining lands unusable - In 2000, each plaintiff sued Douglass's estate - Douglass's estate sought summary judgment based on a limitation defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, for the purposes of this application, applied the limitations principle that was most favourable to the plaintiffs, which was discoverability - See paragraph 6.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - Each plaintiff bought land from or through Douglass, before December 1986 - When purchasing, each plaintiff was warned about the instability of a bank on the properties - Each plaintiff excavated fill from their property and constructed a house - All of the houses were completed by the end of 1988 - In 1999, a landslide destroyed the houses and made the remaining lands unusable - In 2000, each plaintiff sued Douglass's estate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the actions against Douglass's estate on the basis of the discoverability limitation defence - At the very latest, by the time that their houses were finished, the plaintiffs knew everything they needed to know, and everything they needed to instruct an expert to find out for them, about the potential dangers of fill on the lots - The same time frame applied to any representations on subdivision approval, failure to warn about dangerous geological conditions and misrepresentation.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - [See both Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Cases Noticed:

Armstrong v. West Vancouver (District), [2002] B.C.T.C. 135 (S.C.), affd. (2003), 178 B.C.A.C. 233; 292 W.A.C. 233 (C.A.), folld. [para. 13].

Emms et al. v. Prince George (City) et al., [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Privest Properties Ltd. et al. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. et al. (1995), 11 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.), affd. (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 182; 143 W.A.C. 182; 31 B.C.L.R.(3d) 114, additional reasons (1997), 91 B.C.A.C. 290; 148 W.A.C. 290 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 224 N.R. 152; 95 B.C.A.C. 155; 154 W.A.C. 155 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 13, 19].

Edwards and Edwards v. Boulderwood Development Co., Compton and Joneljim Concrete Construction Ltd. (1984), 64 N.S.R.(2d) 395; 143 A.P.R. 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Heighington et al. v. Ontario et al. (1987), 60 O.R.(2d) 641 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Toffoli v. Rozenhart et al. (1992), 1 Alta. L.R.(3d) 104 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 13].

Robertson v. Wallace et al., [2000] 9 W.W.R. 141; 276 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Schulz v. Leeside Developments Ltd. (1978), 90 D.L.R.(3d) 98 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Fehr v. Jacob and Bethel Hospital, [1993] 5 W.W.R. 1; 85 Man.R.(2d) 63; 41 W.A.C. 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Arndt v. Gray (1993), 140 A.R. 90 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 13].

Boudreault v. Barrett et al. (1998), 219 A.R. 67; 179 W.A.C. 67 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Brown v. Northey and Killian's Restaurant (1987) Ltd. (1991), 115 A.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Bakker v. Stainton [2002] A.R. Uned. 388 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 13].

Hercules Management Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 165; 211 N.R. 352; 115 Man.R.(2d) 241; 139 W.A.C. 241; 146 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 13].

Langille et al. v. Canada (1992), 140 N.R. 304 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Johal v. Harstad (1988), 47 D.L.R.(4th) 636 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Hill v. Registrar of Alberta South Alberta Land Registration District (1993), 135 A.R. 266; 33 W.A.C. 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 13].

Maull v. Rodnunsky (2001), 287 A.R. 343 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 14].

Zebroski v. Jehovah's Witnesses (1986), 71 A.R. 259 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Allied-Signal Inc. v. Dome Petroleum Ltd. et al. (1991), 122 A.R. 321; 81 Alta. L.R.(2d) 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Western Canadian Place Ltd. et al. v. Con-Force Products Ltd. et al. (1997), 208 A.R. 179 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

NPS Farms Ltd. et al. v. Dupont Canada Inc. et al. (2001), 297 A.R. 318 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 14].

Photinopoulos v. Photinopoulos et al. (1988), 92 A.R. 122; 54 D.L.R.(4th) 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Zebroski v. Jehovah's Witnesses (1988), 87 A.R. 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Davis v. Moranis and Smith, [1949] O.W.N. 638 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Armstrong v. West Vancouver (District) (2003), 178 B.C.A.C. 233; 292 W.A.C. 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Edmonton Centre West Ltd. et al. v. CCD Edmonton Ltd. et al. (1999), 247 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Edmonton (City) v. Lovat Tunnel Equipment Inc. and Rotek Inc. (1991), 113 A.R. 141 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 14].

University of Regina v. Pettick et al. (1991), 90 Sask.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 15].

New Islington and Hackney Housing Association Ltd. v. Pollard Thomas and Edwards Ltd., [2000] E.W.J. No. 7012 (Q.B.D., Tech. & Constr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Sparham-Souter et al. v. Town and Country Developments (Essex) Ltd. et al., [1976] 2 All E.R. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd. v. Oscar Faber & Partners, [1983] 1 All E.R. 65 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 124].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Report on Limitations, Report No. 55 (December 1989), pp. 1, 2, 69 to 72 [para. 13]; 100 [para. 15].

Counsel:

K.F. Bailey, Q.C., and David C. Rolf, for the applicants;

Michael A. Kirk, for the respondents, Bowes, Skinner, Reid.

This action was heard on February 5, 20, 26 and 27, 2003, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on May 30, 2003.