Lewis et al. v. British Columbia, (1997) 220 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 11, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 220 N.R. 81 (SCC);98 BCAC 168;1997 CanLII 304 (SCC);[1997] 3 SCR 1145;220 NR 81;[1997] SCJ No 109 (QL);153 DLR (4th) 594;31 MVR (3d) 149;43 BCLR (3d) 154;[1998] 5 WWR 732;40 CCLT (2d) 153;161 WAC 168

Lewis v. B.C. (1997), 220 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [1997] N.R. TBEd. DE.002

Paula Leeann Lewis and Shannon Lee Lewis, Infants by their Guardian Ad Litem, Diana Holt, and Leeland Gordon James Holt, Bobbi-Jo Holt, and Shayne Calvert Holt, Infants by their Guardian Ad Litem, Gail Nachbar, and the said Diana Holt and Jeffrey David Holt (appellants) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (respondent)

(24999)

Indexed As: Lewis et al. v. British Columbia

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

December 11, 1997.

Summary:

The Ministry of Transportation and High­ways hired an independent contractor to remove dangerous rocks from the rock face adjacent to a highway. The contractor negli­gently performed the maintenance work. A rock fell, struck and killed a motorist. The plaintiffs (motorist's family) sued the prov­ince for damages.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported 91 B.C.L.R.(2d) 365, allowed the action. The court held that the province was liable for the negligent acts of the independent contractor and that neither the Crown Proceeding Act (s. 3) nor the Occupiers Liability Act (s. 8(2)) limited the province's liability. The province appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 63 B.C.A.C. 241; 104 W.A.C. 241, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. Notwithstanding the contractor's negligence, the province may have dis­charged it's duty, since s. 8(2) of the Occu­piers Lia­bility Act appeared to indicate that the prov­ince (as principal) and the contractor were subject to different duties of care. The plain­tiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment. The wording of the Highway Act and Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, combined with policy considerations, imposed on the province not only a duty of care respecting the hiring and supervision of independent contractors, but also an non-delegable duty to ensure that the work of such contractors was done without negligence.

Crown - Topic 1513

Torts by and against Crown - General and definitions - Independent contractors - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that where the law imposed a strict statutory duty on the province to do a positive act, the province cannot escape liability by delegating the work to an independent contractor - The province remains liable for the contractor's negligence - However, if the province is under no statutory duty to do something, it is subject to a common law duty of care if it chooses to act - In some situations, that duty of care is met by hiring and supervising a competent inde­pendent contractor - Whether a given situ­ation falls between the two ends of the spectrum of Crown liability for indepen­dent contractors will depend to a large extent on the statutory provisions involved and the circumstances of each case - See paragraphs 17 to 20.

Crown - Topic 1573

Torts by and against Crown - Negligence by Crown - Construction and maintenance of highways - The province hired an inde­pendent contractor to remove danger­ous rocks from a rock face adjacent to a high­way - The contractor negligently failed to remove two dangerous rocks, one of which fell and killed a passing motorist - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the province was liable for the contractor's negligence - The wording of the Highway Act and Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, combined with policy considerations and the reasonable expecta­tions on highway users, imposed on the province not only a duty of care respecting the hiring and supervision of independent contractors, but also an non-delegable duty to ensure that the work of such contractors was done without negligence - Neither the Crown Proceeding Act (s. 3) nor the Oc­cupiers Liability Act (s. 8(2)) limited that liability - See paragraphs 1 to 47.

Municipal Law - Topic 1736

Liability of municipalities - Highways and streets - Dangerous highway conditions - Falling rocks - [See Crown - Topic 1573 ].

Torts - Topic 2555

Vicarious liability - For independent con­tractors - Highway and road activities - [See Crown - Topic 1573 ].

Torts - Topic 9156

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials or author­ities - Highway authorities - [See Crown - Topic 1573 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tucker v. Asleson et al. (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 253; 40 W.A.C. 253; 78 B.C.L.R.(2d) 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 385; 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350; 18 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689, consd. [para. 11].

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, consd. [para. 11].

Swinamer v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 445; 163 N.R. 291; 129 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 362 A.P.R. 321, consd. [para. 11].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 13].

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. 14].

Hole v. Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway Co. (1861), 6 H. & N. 488; 158 E.R. 201, refd to. [para. 17].

Kitchener (City) v. Robe and Clothing Co., [1925] S.C.R. 106, refd to. [para. 17].

Tucker v. Asleson et al., [1991] B.C.J. No. 954 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Vancouver Power Co. v. Hounsome (1914), 49 S.C.R. 430, refd to. [para. 27].

Saint John (City) v. Donald, [1926] S.C.R. 371, refd to. [para. 29].

Dalton v. Angus (1881), 6 App. Cas. 740 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 29].

Hardaker v. Idle District Council, [1896] 1 Q.B. 335 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Darling v. Attorney General, [1950] 2 All E.R. 793 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30].

Fisher v. Ruislip-Northwood U.D.C., [1945] 2 All E.R. 458 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Kondis v. State Transport Authority (1984), 154 C.L.R. 672 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. Ltd. (1994), 179 C.L.R. 520 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Pickard v. Smith (1861), 10 C.B.(N.S.), 470; 142 E.R. 535, refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Crown Proceeding Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 86, sect. 2(c) [para. 10]; sect. 3(2)(b) [para. 40]; sect. 3(2)(f) [para. 10].

Highway Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 167, sect. 8(1), sect. 28(1), sect. 33(1) [para. 8].

Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 280, sect. 14, sect. 48 [para. 9].

Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 303, sect. 8 [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Atiyah, P.S., Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (1967), pp. 358, 359 [para. 34].

Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), § 418 [para. 51].

Swanton, J.P., Non-delegable Duties: Lia­bility for the Negligence of Independent Contractors (Part I) (1991), 4 J. Contract L. 183, pp. 192, 201, 202 [para. 51].

Williams, Glanville, Liability for Independent Contractors, [1956] Cambridge L.J. 180, p. 180 [para. 51].

Counsel:

John N. Laxton, Q.C., and Robert D. Gibbens, for the appellants;

William A. Pearce, Q.C., and J. Douglas Eastwood, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Laxton & Co., Vancouver, B.C., for the appellants;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 7, 1997, before Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on December 11, 1997, and the following opinions were filed:

Cory, J. (Iacobucci and Major, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 47;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 48 to 55.

Sopinka, J., did not participate in the judg­ment.