Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., (1989) 94 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 20, 1989
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 94 N.R. 1 (SCC);23 QAC 1;45 MPLR 1;94 NR 1;[1989] 1 SCR 705;1989 CanLII 81 (SCC);JE 89-709;AZ-89111044

Laurentide Motels Ltd. v. Beauport (1989), 94 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Laurentide Motels Ltd. (Les Investissements T.R.L. Ltée), Le Restaurant Bastogne Inc. and Thomas R. Levesque (appellants) v. The City of Beauport (respondent) and Gerard Tremblay (mis-en-cause)

(19842)

Indexed As: Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

April 20, 1989.

Summary:

On February 25, 1972, fire broke out at a hotel-restaurant complex situated in the City of Beauport. The fire started when a hotel patron, Tremblay fell asleep when his cigarette was still lit. The City's firemen arrived on the scene but, because of faulty water supply and questionable fire fighting strategy, were unable to put out the fire until the complex was considerably damaged. The complex's owners sued Tremblay and the City of Beauport. The Quebec Superior Court (Roberge, J.), allowed the action. (See (1980), 9 M.P.L.R. 184; J.E. 80-72). The City appealed but not Tremblay.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the City's appeal. (See [1986] R.J.Q. 981; 3 Q.A.C. 163). The complex's owners appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 587

Judges - Duties - To decide according to evidence - After an exceptionally long trial (48 days, 89 volumes of stenographic transcription) the trial judge said that it would be impossible to summarize each witness' testimony and to follow step by step the presentation of the evidence - Rather, the judge asked himself the relevant questions of law and fact and attempted to answer them on the basis of the evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the trial judge's method and held: "When a trial judge is assessing facts in terms of the law, what matters is that his conclusions be based on the evidence, that is, consistent with the evidence, and that no evidence essential to the outcome of the case be ignored." - See paragraphs 236 to 239.

Municipal Law - Topic 1710

Liability of municipalities - General and definitions - Statutory immunity - A municipality claimed statutory immunity from liability on the basis of s. 442 of the Cities and Towns Act (Quebec) - The section read: "The municipality shall not be bound to warrant the quantity of water to be supplied; and no person may refuse, on account of the insufficiency of the water supply, to pay the annual special tax and the compensations for the use of the water." - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted s. 442, rejected the municipality's claim and held: 1) Section 442 deals with taxes, not liability; 2) Because of its consequences for the taxpayer a statutory immunity provision must be clear; 3) A municipality cannot be exempted from liability unless the act creating the municipality expressly says so or authorizes the municipality to do so by way of bylaw - See paragraphs 98 to 124.

Municipal Law - Topic 1982

Liability of municipalities - Quebec Responsibility - Basis of liability - A Quebec municipality was sued when faulty water supply and questionable fire fighting strategy allowed a building to burn - What rules apply here to determine the municipality's civil liability when 1) a municipality is governed by public law which, in Quebec, is a combination of written law and the public aspects of English Common Law, 2) civil liability in Quebec is normally governed by the private law i.e. the Civil Law and 3) the statute creating the municipality is silent respecting the rules applicable to the municipality's civil liability for fire damage resulting from faulty water supply and question able fire fighting strategy? - To answer the question, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of public and private law in Quebec and held: 1) Public law distinguishes between setting up and operating water and fire fighting services. The former relates to the policy aspects of a municipality's statutory powers while the latter relates to the operational aspects - 2) Public law alone governs the policy aspects. Consequently liability for policy decisions is political, not civil - 3) Public law, though preponderant, allows private law to govern the operational aspects. Consequently, liability relating to operational aspects is civil - 4) In Quebec, civil liability is governed by arts. 1053 et seq. C.C. L.C. - 5) The fire here resulted from a failure at the operational level and 6) Arts. 1053 et seq. C.C.L.C. are here the applicable civil liability rules - See paragraphs 1 to 226.

Municipal Law - Topic 1988

Liability of municipalities - Quebec Responsibility - Failure to maintain municipal services - A municipality was sued when, owing to defective water supply and fire fighting services a building was allowed to burn - Did the municipality commit liability incurring fault? - The Supreme Court of Canada answered yes - The reasons: When the municipality exercised its statutory powers and decided, in its discretion, to pass bylaws setting up water supply and fire fighting services, it assumed an extra-contractual obligation of means to maintain those services - The plaintiffs here proved that the municipality breached this obligation - Fault was established - The plaintiffs also established a causal link between fault and damage - The municipality was therefore held liable - See paragraphs 125 to 174, 227 to 279.

Quebec Civil Law - Topic 1732

Moral persons including corporations - Regulation, political corporations - Application of public law and civil law - Article 356 para. 1 C.C.L.C. says: "Secular corporations are further divided into political and civil; those that are political are governed by the public law, and only fall within the control of the civil law in their relations, in certain respects, to individual members of society." - The Supreme Court of Canada traced a history of the article, set out the opposing views on its interprétation and held: "... [S]ubject to the rules of public law, art. 356 C.C.L.C. places public corporations under the civil law of Quebec in everything affecting property and civil rights, except in the case of a provision to the contrary in their charters or in a special or general statute ..." - See paragraphs 175 to 226.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 7955

Appeal - General - Duty of appellate court re findings of credibility by trial judge - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "... [A]n appellate court which has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and as such is unable to assess their movements, glances, hesitations, trembling, blushing, surprise or bravado, is not in a position to substitute its opinion for that of the trial judge, who has the difficult task of separating the wheat from the chaff and looking into hearts and minds of witnesses in an attempt to discover the truth. If it happens that the trial judge neglects to indicate his findings in this respect or does not adequately support them, then it may be that an appellate court has to form its own conclusions. However, that is not the case here, where ... the judge noted his impressions frequently and supported his findings." - See paragraphs 236 to 269.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2171

Damages - Characteristics of compensation - Full redress - General - The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the principle of arts. 1073 et seq. C.C.L.C. whereby the victim of a fault is entitled to monetary compensation adequate enough to replace him in the position he was in before the fault - Several methods are available for determining this compensation - These methods are often presented with the aid of experts, whose testimony the trial judge assesses on the basis of the usual factors, including credibility and sincerity - An appellate court will not interfere with the trial judge's assessment unless there is a manifest error - See paragraphs 294 and 295.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2212

Damages - Damages for property loss - Buildings - Depreciated replacement value - A hotel-restaurant complex was partly destroyed by fire in 1972 - The owners decided not to rebuild but to operate the undamaged part, which was sold in 1975 - In assessing damages for the building, the trial judge chose the method of depreciated replacement value, i.e. "what it would cost to rebuild identical buildings, taking into account a depreciation factor for new materials and the recovery of what remained after the fire." - The judge refused to consider the real estate assessment value and the 1975 sale price because they did not adequately represent the value of the buildings destroyed - The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the trial judge's decision - See paragraphs 285 to 288, 293 to 307.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2232

Damages - Damages for property loss - Loss of profit - Measure of - A hotel restaurant complex was partly destroyed by fire in 1972 - The owners decided not to rebuild but to operate the undamaged part, which was sold in 1975 - In assessing damages for loss of profit (i.e. net income) the trial judge accepted the assessment made by the owners' experts - This assessment was based on the premise that it would take 18 months to rebuild the building, during which time no profits would be generated - The experts also allowed 50% of the regular income for a further six-month period - The experts then calculated the income loss for this period and deducted the profits made during the continued operation of the undamaged part of the complex - The trial judge disregarded the intention not to rebuild and the effect of the subsequent sale - The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the trial judge's decision - See paragraphs 210, 211, 308 to 325.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2252

Damages - Damages for property loss - Incidental expenses - Measure of - A hotel-restaurant complex was partly destroyed by fire in 1972 - The owners decided not to rebuild but to operate the undamaged part, which was sold in 1975 - They hired experts and accountants to determine the amount of their loss - The owners paid them $64,000.00 - The trial judge held that this amount was recoverable from the defendants - The judge also granted damages for re-opening expenses - The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the award respecting the experts' and accountants' fees but overturned the award respecting re-opening expenses - See paragraphs 290, 308 to 326.

Cases Noticed:

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent, [1941] A.C. 74 (H.L.), not folld. [paras. 9, 23, 45, 73, 75, 77, 78, 84].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), folld. [paras. 9, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 46, 50, 61, 70, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 101, 222, 223, 342].

Nielsen v. Kamloops, City of et al., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, folld. [paras. 12, 23, 24, 25, 33, 34, 46, 50, 61, 70, 82, 84, 85, 91, 93, 95, 101, 222, 223, 342].

Adricon LimitEe v. La Ville d'East Angus, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1107; 19 N.R. 181, refd to. [paras. 29, 191].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. c. Beauport (Ville) et al. (1980), 9 M.P.L. R. 184; J.E. 80-72, refd to. [paras. 40, 54, 55, 58, 229, 230, 231, 236, 242, 245, 251, 252, 256, 258, 261, 262, 265, 271, 273, 275, 287, 288, 291, 312, 323, 324, 328].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. c. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1986] R.J.Q. 981; 3 Q.A.C. 163 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 41, 60, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 165, 200, 209, 224, 233, 234, 235, 248, 253, 266, 276].

Wing v. Moncton, [1940] 2 D.L.R. 740, refd to. [para. 45].

Stevens-Willson v. City of Chatham, [1934] S.C.R. 353, refd to. [para. 45].

Chevalier c. Corporation de la Cité de Trois-Rivières (1913), 20 R. de J. 100 (C. de Rev.), refd to. [paras. 46, 217].

Larivière c. Cité de Montréal (1941), 47 R.L. 505, refd to. [para. 46].

Cité de Pont Viau c. Gauthier Mfg. Ltd., [1979] C.A. 77, refd to. [paras. 46, 56].

Corporation of Montreal v. Doolan (1871), 18 L.C.J. 124 (Que C.A.), refd to. [paras. 46, 181, 217].

Phaneuf c. Corporation du Village de Saint-Hugues (1936), 61 B.R. 83, refd to. [para. 48].

City of Verdun c. Sun Oil Co., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 222, refd to. [para. 48].

Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway Co., [1905] A.C. 426, refd to. [para. 48].

Authier c. Corporations de la Ville de l'Assomption (1903), 9 R. de J. 374, refd to. [para. 50].

Lefebvre c. Town of Grand Mère (1917), 55 S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 50].

City of Montreal v. Mulcair (1898), 28 S.C.R. 458, refd to. [para. 50].

Napper v. Cité de Sherbrooke, [1968] S.C.R. 716, refd to. [para. 50].

Peltier c. Village of Gatineau Pointe (1937), 76 C.S. 180, refd to. [para. 50].

Brousseau c. La Ville de Québec (1912), 42 C.S. 91, refd to. [paras. 50, 51].

Roy c. Cité de Montréal (1892), 2 C.S. 305, refd to. [para. 50].

Wilshire c. Village de St. Louis du Mile End (1899), 8 B.R. 479, refd to. [para. 50].

Quesnel c. Emard and the City of Montreal (1912), 8 D.L.R. 537, refd to. [paras. 50, 51].

Fournier c. Cité de Lachine (1926), 66 C.S. 109, refd to. [para. 51].

Harris v. Marter (1874), 15 N.B.R. 165 (Sup. Ct. App. Div.), refd to. [para. 51].

Wellbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg, [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 51].

Marcoux c. Ville de Plessisville, [1973] R.P. 385 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

Joseph Investment Corp. v. Cité d'Outremont, [1973] S.C.R. 708, refd to. [paras. 51, 221].

R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 3 C.R.(3d) 30, consd. [para. 57].

Mainwaring v. Nanaimo, [1951] 4 D.L. R. 519, refd to. [para. 76].

Miller & Brown Ltd. v. City of Vancouver (1966), 59 D.L.R.(2d) 640, refd to. [para. 76].

Barratt v. North Vancouver, Municipality of, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 418; 33 N.R. 293, refd to. [para. 76].

McCrea v. City of White Rock (1974), 56 D.L.R.(3d) 525, refd to. [para. 76].

Seguin v. Town of Hawkesbury, [1955] O.R. 956, refd to. [para. 76].

Martel v. City of Montreal, [1943] C.S. 290, refd to. [para. 76].

Yeun Kun Yeu v. A.G. of Hong Kong, [1988] 1 A.C. 175 (P.C.), dist. [paras. 86, 87].

Curran v. Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association Ltd., [1987] 2 All E.R. 13, dist. [paras. 86, 88].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1 (H.C. Austr.), refd to. [paras. 89, 90].

Berkovitz By Berkovitz c. U.S. (1988), 108 S.Ct. 1954, refd to. [para. 92].

Montreal Light Heat and Power Cot. c. Cité de Montréal (1917), 26 B.R. 368, refd to. [para. 114].

Langelier c. Giroux (1931), 52 B.R. 113, refd to. [para. 181].

Citizens Insurance Co. of Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 A.C. 96, consd. [para. 186].

O'Reilly v. Mackman, [1982] 3 W.L.R. 604, refd to. [para. 207].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Labrecque et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1057; 38 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 212].

McLeave v. City of Moncton (1902), 32 S.C.R. 106, refd to. [para. 217].

Harper c. Cité de Montréal (1910), 16 R. de J. 229, refd to. [para. 217].

Levinson c. Cité de Montréal (1911), 39 C.S. 259, refd to. [para. 217].

Brown and Springle c. Corporation de Montréal (1871), 4 R.L. 7, refd to. [paras. 181, 217].

Exchange Bank of Canada v. The Queen (1886), 11 A.C. 157, refd to. [para. 220].

Province of Quebec v. Bank of Montreal, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 565; 25 N.R. 330, refd to. [para. 221].

J.E. Verreault et Fils Ltée v. Le Procureur Général de la Province de Québec, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 41; 5 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 221].

Kolesar Estate v. Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital and Malette, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 491; 15 N.R. 302, refd to. [para. 237].

Maryland Casualty v. Roland Roy Fourrures Inc., [1974] S.C.R. 52, refd to. [para. 237].

Chartier v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 474; 27 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 237].

Schreiber Brothers Ltd. v. Currie Products Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 78; 31 N.R. 335, refd to. [para. 237].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334, folld. [para. 238].

Pelletier c. Shykofsky, [1957] S.C.R. 635, refd to. [para. 239].

St-Pierre c. Tanguay, [1959] S.C.R. 21, refd to. [para. 239].

Dorval c. Bouvier, [1968] S.C.R. 288, refd to. [para. 239].

Metivier v. Cadorette, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 371; 8 N.R. 129, refd to. [para. 239].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 239].

Volkert c. Diamond Truck Co., [1940] S.C.R. 455, refd to. [para. 270].

Morin v. Blais, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 570; 10 N.R. 489, refd to. [para. 270].

Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co., [1951] A.C. 601 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 282].

Proctor v. Dyck, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 244, refd to. [para. 282].

Watt v. Smith, [1968] S.C.R. 177, refd to. [para. 282].

Industrial Teletype Electronics Corporation v. City of Montreal, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 629; 10 N.R. 517, refd to. [para. 282].

Hamel v. Brunelle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 147; 8 N.R. 481, refd to. [para. 282].

Andrews v. Grand and Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; 1 W.W.R. 557; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 282].

Hopital général de la region de l'amiante Inc. c. Perron, [1979] C. A. 567, refd to. [para. 282].

Woelk v. Halvorson, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 430; 33 N.R. 232, refd to. [para. 282].

Snyder v. Montreal Gazette Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 429; 82 N.R. 371, refd to. [para. 282].

Laurent et al. v. Hôpital Notre-Dame de l'Espérance, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 605; 17 N.R. 593, appld. [para. 290].

Royal Insurance Co. c. Rourke, [1973] C.A. 1046, consd. [paras. 302, 313, 314].

Colomba c. Madill, [1979] C.S. 17, consd. [para. 303].

Delarosbil v. La Prévoyance, Cie d'assurance, [1978] C.S. 363, refd to. [para. 315].

Findlay v. Howard (1919), 58 S.C.R. 516, consd. [para. 317, 318].

Findlay v. Howard (1917), 51 C.S. 385 (C. de Rev.), consd. [para. 318].

Pratt v. Beaman, [1930] S.C.R. 284, refd to. [para. 319].

Golden Eagle Canada Ltd. c. Ray Gas Bar Inc., [1973] C.A. 319, refd to. [para. 321].

Corriveau and Peloquin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada, [1980] C.A. 4, conf. by [1982] 2 S.C.R. 866; 49 N.R. 81, consd. [paras. 337, 338].

Girard c. Lavoie, [1975] C.A. 904, refd to. [para. 339].

Statutes Noticed:

Ministére du Revenu, Act respecting the, R.S.Q. 1977, c. M-31, sect. 28.

Taxation Act and other legislation and to make certain provisions respecting retail sales tax, Act to amend the, Bill 60, First reading, 2nd Session, 33rd Legislature (Quebec), sect. 251.

Beauport, Charter of the Town of, S.Q. 1950-51, c. 91, sect. 17.

Cities and Towns Act, 1922, S.Q. 1922, c. 65, sect. 422, sect. 441.

Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q. 1925, c. 102, sect. 433, sect. 452.

Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 193, sect. 426, sect. 433, sect. 452.

Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-19, sect. 28(1), sect. 28(3), sect. 412, sect. 423, sect. 427, sect. 430, sect. 431, sect. 434, sect. 436, sect. 439, sect. 442, sect. 450, sect. 585(7).

Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 13, art. 18, art. 356, art. 1053, art. 1056, art. 1073, art. 1077.

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 92(13).

Municipal Code of the Province of Quebec, S.Q. 1870, c. 68, sect. 637.

Municipal Code of the Province of Quebec, R.S.Q. 1888, sect. 6134.

Municipal Code of Quebec, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-27.1, art. 724, art. 725, art. 772.

Police Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-13, sect. 2.1.

Quebec Act, 1774 (U.K.), 14 Geo. 3, c. 83, sect. 8.

Revenue Department Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 66, sect. 53.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archambault, J.-D., La responsabilité délictuelle municipale: fondement et application au combat des incendies, (1981) 41 R. du B. 3, in general [paras. 7, 8, 9]; pp. 5-6 [para. 187]; 12 [para. 202]; 12-13 [para. 204]; 14-15 [para. 206]; 15-16 [para. 182]; 17 [para. 197]; 28 [para. 217]; 40-41 [para. 7]; 45, 49, 60-61, 65-68 [para. 45]; 50-51 [paras. 50, 51]; 166-167 [para. 196].

Civil Code of Lower Canada, First, Second and Third Reports, 1865, pp. 228-230 [paras. 177, 205]; 230 [paras. 18, 178, 187, 202]; 232 [para. 179].

Archambault, J.-D., La responsabilité municipale dans le combat des incendies - Malette c. Portage du Fort, (1984) 15 R.G.D. 107, in general [para. 44]; p. 112 [para. 118]; 113 [para. 118].

Archambault, J.-D., Les sources juridiques de la responsabilité extracontractuelle municipale, (1985) 16 R.G.D. 101, in general [para. 44]; pp. 107-109 [para. 180]; 116 [para. 51].

L'Heureux, J., Sources du droit et régles applicables en matière de responsabilité extra-contractuelle au Québec, (1985) 16 R.G.D. 131, in general [paras. 44, 46]; pp. 135 [para. 210]; 138 [para. 194]; 141 [para. 198]; 141-142 [para. 50]; 142 146 [paras. 50, 51]; 148-149 [paras. 51, 167].

L'Heureux, J., La responsabilité extra-contractuelle des municipalités; un point de vue différent sur l'arrêt Ville de Beauport c. Laurentide Motels, (1987) 47 R. du B. 160, in general [paras. 44, 46]; p. 167 [para. 69]; 170-171 [para. 120].

McNicoll, M., La responsabilité civile délictuelle des municipalités en matiére de combat des incendies, (1983) 24 C. de D. 379, in general [paras. 44, 46]; pp. 401 [para. 192]; 404-407 [paras. 50, 51].

McNicoll, M., La réparation: une question de contrôle judiciaire, (1986) 32 McGill L.J. 187, in general [paras. 44, 46].

Garant, Patrice, Les sources du droit de la responsabilité de la puissance publique, (1986) 46 R. du B. 260, in general [paras. 44, 46]; 265 [para. 193]; 266 [para. 69].

Pigeon, Louis-Philippe, Rédaction et interprétation des lois, 1978, pp. 50-51 [paras. 67, 70, 181].

Fleming, The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1983), p. 98 [para. 87]; 99 [para. 87].

Todd, Stephen, The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities: Divergence in the Common Law (1986), 102 L.Q.R. 370, pp. 396-397 [para. 91].

Côté, P.-A., Interprétation des lois, 1982, p. 52 [para. 115]; 216-217 [para. 116].

Le nouveau Bescherelle, 3, La grammaire pour tous, 1980, p. 184 [para. 115].

Mignault, P.-B., Le Droit civil canadien, t. 2, 1896, p. 335 [paras. 184, 217].

Langelier, F., Cours de droit civil de la province de Québec, t. 2, 1906, p. 65 [para. 185, 187].

Garant, P., Droit administratif, 2è ed., 1985, p. 883 [para. 217].

Dussault, Rene, Traité de droit administratif canadien et québécois, t. 2, 1974, pp. 1468-1469 [para. 217]; note 195 [para. 218].

Walton, F.P., Le domaine et l'interprétation du Code civil du Bas-Canada, 1980, p. 54 [para. 219].

Morin, M., La Cour suprême et les motifs d'intervention d'une cour d'appel sur des questions de faits, [1985] R.D.J. 121, pp. 131-134 [para. 237].

Baudouin, J.-L., La responsabilité civile délictuelle, 2e éd., 1985, nos. 335 and 353 [para. 270].

Ducharme, Léo, L'administration de la preuve, 1986, no. 318 [para. 329].

Counsel:

Gratien Boily and Louis Valli eres, for the appellants;

Raynold Belanger, Q.C., Andre Gagnon, Q.C., and Jean-Charles Lord, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gagne, Letarte, Sirois, Beaudet & Associes, Quebec, Que., for the appellants;

Jean-Charles Lord, Beauport, Que., Raymond Belanger, Levis, Que., and Gagnon, De Billy & Associes, Quebec, Que., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 24, 1988, by Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on October 20, 1989, and the following opinions were filed:

Beetz, J. (McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson and La Forest, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 37;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. - see paragraphs 38 to 343.

Le Dain, J., took no part in the judgment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÉRES

-	para./par.
I - THE LAW/LE DROIT	43
--A - PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS/PRELIMINAIRES	43
--B - JUDGMENTS/LES JUGEMENTS	54
---1. Superior Court/Cour supérieure	54
---2. Court of Appeal/Cour d'appel	59
--C - PUBLIC LAW RESPECTING THE EXERCISE OF A DISCRETIONARY POWER BY A PUBLIC BODY/LE DROIT PUBLIC EN MATIÉRE D'EXERCICE D'UN POUVOIR DISCRÉTIONNAIRE PAR UN CORPS PUBLIC	64
---1. East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent, [1941] A.C. 74	73
---2. Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728	77
---3. City of Kamloops v. Nielsen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1	82
---4. Subsequent developments/Les développements subséquents	86
---5. Conclusion	93
--D - POWER/DUTY; POLICY/IMPLEMENTATION/ POUVOIR ET DEVOIR; POLITIQUE ET ÉXÉCUTION	94
--E - SECTION 452, CITIES AND TOWNS ACT/ L'ARTICLE 452 DE LA LOI DES CITÉS ET VILLES	98
--F - BY-LAWS/LES RÉGLEMENTS	125
---1. By-laws relating to water system/ Règlements relatifs au système d'acqueduc	125
---2. Budgetary provisions regarding waterworks/ Dispositions budgétaires relatives à l'aqueduc	151
---3. By-laws relating to fire protection/ Réglements relatifs à la protection contre les incendies	154
---4. Fire department budget/Budget du département des incendies	163
---5. Conclusion	164
--G - ARTICLE 356 C.C.L.C./L'ARTICLE 356 C.c.B.-C.	175
II. FAULT/LES FAUTES	227
--A - JUDGMENTS/LES JUGEMENTS	229
---1. Superior Court/Cour supérieure	229
---2. Court of Appeal/Cour d'appel	232
--B - ANALYSIS/ANALYSE	236
---1. Start of fire:/Le début de l'incendie	250
---2. State of building and defective condition of fire doors/L'état du bâtiment et la défectuosité des portes coupe-feu	255
---3. Snow covering hydrants/L'enneigement des tornes-fontaines	258
---4. Employee negligence:/La négligence des employés	264
III - CAUSAL LINK/LE LIEN DE CAUSALITÉ	270
IV - QUANTUM OF DAMAGES/LE QUANTUM DES DOMMAGES	280
--A - TRIAL JUDGMENT/LE JUGEMENT DE PREMIERE INSTANCE	284
---1. Buildings/Les bâtiments	285
---2. Contents of buildings/Le contenu des bâtiments	289
---3. Profits and incidental expenses/Les profits et frais incidents	290
--B - ANALYSIS/ANALYSE	292
---1. Depreciated replacement value/La valeur de remplacement dépréciée	293
---2. Compensation for future damage/L'indemnité pour dommages futurs	308
---3. Admission of hearsay evidence/L'admission d'une preuve de ouï-dire	327
---4. Unjust enrichment/L'enrichissement sans cause	330
---5. Additional indemnity/L'indemnité additionnelle	333
V - CONCLUSION	342