Heinicke v. Cooper Rankin Ltd. et al., (2006) 210 Man.R.(2d) 125 (QB)

• Judge: Simonsen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: November 22, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2006), 210 Man.R.(2d) 125 (QB);2006 MBQB 273

Heinicke v. Cooper Rankin Ltd. (2006), 210 Man.R.(2d) 125 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.010

Elaine Heinicke, on her own behalf, and on behalf of 23 Homeowners in the Assiniboine Woods Residential Development (plaintiffs) v. Cooper Rankin Ltd., James Richardson & Sons Limited, The Government of Manitoba, and The City of Winnipeg (defendants) and Sawyer Wood Products Inc., 2719356 Manitoba Ltd. and Lance Roofing Ltd. (third parties)

(CI 02-01-27950; 2006 MBQB 273)

Indexed As: Heinicke v. Cooper Rankin Ltd. et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Simonsen, J.

November 22, 2006.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendants (an architectural firm and the City of Winnipeg) for damages in connection with the use of untreated pine shakes on the roof of her residence.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the plaintiff's action.

Damages - Topic 531

Limits of compensatory damages - Remoteness - Torts - Recoverable damages - Purely economic loss - The plaintiff sued an architectural firm for damages for economic loss in connection with the use of untreated pine shakes on the roof of her Winnipeg residence which were unsuitable and had to be removed and replaced with cedar at a cost of $19,099 - The architectural firm's guidelines listed pine shakes as acceptable roofing materials for new residences in the Winnipeg area - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the claim against the architectural firm - The court, categorizing the plaintiff's claim as one for defective structure, held that the claim could not succeed because in order for there to be recovery for pure economic loss in this category the defect had to pose a substantial danger which was not the case here - The court opined that even if the claim could have been categorized as one for negligent misrepresentation or negligent performance of a service, the claim was barred by the six year limitation period in s. 2(1)(n) of the Limitation of Actions Act - See paragraphs 38 to 67.

Municipal Law - Topic 1804.2

Liability of municipalities - Negligence - Standard of care - Building construction approval - [See Torts - Topic 9155 ].

Professional Occupations - Topic 3483

Architects - Negligence - Reports (incl. guidelines) - [See Damages - Topic 531 ].

Torts - Topic 9155

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Municipal authorities - The plaintiff sued the City of Winnipeg for damages for economic loss in connection with the use of untreated pine shakes on the roof of her Winnipeg residence which were unsuitable and had to be removed and replaced with cedar at a cost of $19,099 - The plaintiff claimed that the city was negligent in its approval of untreated pine shakes as an equivalent building material under the Manitoba Building Code and failed to conduct any inspection of her roof while her home was under construction - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found that the city owed a duty of care to the plaintiff respecting its inspections, or lack thereof, of her residence - However, the court held that even if the city breached its duty of care by not conducting an inspection, the plaintiff failed to establish causation (i.e., she failed to establish that the city's failure to inspect caused her any damage because even if there was an inspection the roof would have complied with the code) - The court held that in the particular circumstances of this case, where the city had a duty to inspect the plaintiff's home, it also owed her a duty of care with respect to determination of equivalents under the code - However, the court found that there was no breach of that duty because the city took reasonable care in the steps it took to determine the equivalency - See paragraphs 68 to 95.

Cases Noticed:

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 32]

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 33].

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. and Tug Jervis Crown et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 137 N.R. 241; 91 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 34].

Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co. et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85; 176 N.R. 321; 100 Man.R.(2d) 241; 91 W.A.C. 241; 121 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 34].

Burke et al. v. Heaton et al. (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 213; 304 W.A.C. 213; 228 D.L.R.(4th) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Sentinel Self-Storage Corp. v. Dyregrov et al. (2003), 180 Man.R.(2d) 85; 310 W.A.C. 85; 2003 MBCA 136, refd to. [para. 42].

Valley Agricultural Society v. Behlen Industries Inc. et al. (2003), 172 Man.R.(2d) 248 (Q.B.), affd. (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 263; 318 W.A.C. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Bryan v. Maloney (1995), 182 C.L.R. 609 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 266 v. 3333 Silver Developments Ltd. (2000), 155 Man.R.(2d) 164 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

66295 Manitoba Ltd. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al., [2002] 7 W.W.R. 732; 165 Man.R.(2d) 29 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 56].

Brett-Young Seeds Ltd. v. Assié Industries Ltd., [2002] M.J. No. 229 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd. v. Oscar Faber & Partners, [1983] 1 All E.R. 65 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 61].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

Rothfield v. Manolakos - see Manolakos v. Vernon (City).

Manolakos v. Vernon (City), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1259; 102 N.R. 249, refd to. [para. 71].

Ingles v. Tutkaluk (2000), 251 N.R. 63; 130 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 76].

Ryan v. Victoria (City) et al., [1994] B.C.J. No. 1202 (S.C.), revd. (1996), 82 B.C.A.C. 40; 133 W.A.C. 40 (C.A.), revd. [1997] 1 S.C.R. 201; 234 N.R. 201; 117 B.C.A.C. 103; 191 W.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 78].

Cumiford v. Powell River (District), [2001] B.C.T.C. 960 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

Gorscak v. 1138319 Ontario Inc. et al., [2003] O.T.C. 857 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 81].

Flynn v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) et al. (2003), 219 N.S.R.(2d) 345; 692 A.P.R. 345 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

Mortimer et al. v. Cameron et al. (1994), 68 O.A.C. 332; 17 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Holtslag v. Alberta (2006), 380 A.R. 133; 363 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2006), 359 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 86].

Nan v. Black Pine Manufacturing Ltd., [1991] 5 W.W.R. 172 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Meditek Laboratory Services Ltd. et al. v. Purolator Courier Ltd. (1994), 96 Man.R.(2d) 100 (Q.B.), revd. (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 85; 93 W.A.C. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Scheller v. C & M Holdings Inc. (1999), 183 Sask.R. 130 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 98].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Boghosian, David G., and Davison, J. Murray, The Law of Municipal Liability in Canada (1999), ss. 2.55 to 2.66 [para. 77].

Feldthusen, Bruce, Economic Loss in the Supreme Court of Canada: Yesterday and Tomorrow (1990-91), 17 Can. Bus. L.J. 356, generally [para. 34].

Irvine, John, The Liability of Design Professionals (2002), pp. 23 to 25 [para. 50].

McGregor, Harvey, Damages (15th Ed. 1988), p. 11, para. 17 [para. 97].

Osborne, Philip H., The Law of Torts (2000), p. 189 [para. 58].

Counsel:

Dave Hill, for the plaintiff, Elaine Heinicke;

Kelly L. Dixon, for the defendant, Cooper Rankin Ltd.;

Michael G. Finlayson, for the City of Winnipeg.;

Robert L. Zaparniuk, for the third party, Sawyer Wood Products Inc.

This action was heard before Simonsen, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on November 22, 2006.