Tock and Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.
• Citation: (1989), 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (SCC),[1989] SCJ No 122 (QL),82 Nfld & PEIR 181,JE 90-29,[1989] 2 SCR 1181,1 CCLT (2d) 113,104 NR 241,1989 CanLII 15 (SCC),257 APR 181,18 ACWS (3d) 531,47 MPLR 113,64 DLR (4th) 620
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 07 December 1989

Tock v. St. John's Bd. (1989), 82 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181 (SCC);

    257 A.P.R. 181

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Neil Tock and Linda Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board

(20267)

Indexed As: Tock and Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.

December 7, 1989.

Summary:

The homeowner Tocks brought an action against the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board in negligence and nuisance for damages after their basement was flooded as a result of a municipal storm sewer obstruction.

The Newfoundland District Court, in a judgment reported 45 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 197; 132 A.P.R. 197, allowed the action and held that the Board was strictly liable in nuisance, notwithstanding the absence of negligence. The Board appealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 62 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 133; 190 A.P.R. 133, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the District Court. The court held that the municipality could not be held liable in nuisance, where there was no negligence. The Tocks appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the trial judge. Wilson, J., Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring, held that where a statute authorized the municipality to construct a sewerage system, but did not specify how or where it was to be done, the municipality was obliged to construct and operate the system in strict conformity with private rights and was liable in nuisance where the obstruction in the storm sewer caused flooding to the Tocks' home, notwithstanding the absence of negligence. La Forest, J., Dickson, C.J.C., concurring, opined that the damage was simply a hidden cost of operating the system, which it was fair to expect the municipality and not the injured private individuals to bear. Sopinka, J., differed from both Wilson and La Forest, JJ., and would have allowed the action on the ground that the municipality failed to negative that there were alternate methods for operating the system which might have avoided damage.

Municipal Law - Topic 1865

Liability of municipalities - Nuisance - Sewerage system - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that where a statute authorized a municipality to construct a sewerage system, but did not specify how or where it was to be done, the municipality was obliged to construct and operate the system in strict conformity with private rights and was liable in nuisance where an obstruction in a storm sewer caused flooding of an adjacent home, notwithstanding the absence of negligence.

Municipal Law - Topic 1869

Liability of municipalities - Nuisance - Water runoff - Broken or blocked lines or mains - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1865 above].

Municipal Law - Topic 1875

Liability of municipalities - Nuisance - Defences - Statutory authority - The Supreme Court of Canada held that if legislation authorizing construction and operation of a sewerage system imposes a duty and nuisance is the inevitable consequence of discharging that duty, then the nuisance is itself authorized and there is no recovery in the absence of negligence; if the legislation, although it merely confers an authority, is specific about the manner or location of doing the thing authorized and the nuisance is the inevitable consequence of doing the thing authorized in that way or in that location, then likewise the nuisance is itself authorized and there is no recovery absent negligence - However, if the legislation confers an authority and also gives the municipality a discretion, not only whether to do the thing authorized, but how to do it and in what location, then if it does decide to do the thing authorized, it must do it in a manner and at a location which will avoid the creation of a nuisance; if it does it in a way or at a location which gives rise to a nuisance, it will be liable whether there is negligence or not - Hence, where a statute authorized a municipality to construct a sewerage system, but did not specify how or where it was to be done, the municipality was obliged to construct and operate the system in strict conformity with private rights and was liable in nuisance where an obstruction in a storm sewer caused flooding of an adjacent home, notwithstanding the absence of negligence - The court held that the inevitable consequence doctrine was inapplicable to permissive legislation.

Torts - Topic 1800

Nuisance - Defences - Statutory authority - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1875 above].

Torts - Topic 2004

Strict liability - General - Application of rule in Rylands v. Fletcher - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was inapplicable to the flooding of a home from a blocked municipal sewerage main, because the operation of a sewerage system was not a nonnatural use of land - See paragraphs 2, 56 to 61.

Cases Noticed:

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330, dist. [paras. 2, 51, 56].

R. v. Pease (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 30; 110 E.R. 66, consd. [para. 8].

Vaughan v. Taff Valley Railway Co. (1860), 29 L.J. Ex. 247, consd. [paras. 8, 68].

Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand (1869), 38 L.J.Q.B. 265, consd. [para. 8].

Geddis v. Proprietors of the Bann Reservoir (1878), 3 App. Cas. 430, consd. [paras. 10, 68].

Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193, appld. [para. 11].

Guelph Worsted Spinning Co. v. City of Guelph (1914), 18 D.L.R. 73, consd. [para. 16].

London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co. v. Truman (1885), 11 App. Cas. 45, consd. [para. 17].

Manchester v. Farnworth, [1930] A.C. 171, consd. [paras. 20, 72].

District of North Vancouver v. McKenzie Barge & Marine Ways Ltd., [1965] S.C.R. 377, consd. [para. 26].

Stephens v. Village of Richmond Hill, [1956] O.R. 88, consd. [para. 28].

Portage La Prairie v. B.C. Pea Growers Ltd., [1966] S.C.R. 150, affing. 50 W.W.R.(N.S.) 415 (Man. C.A.), 45 W.W.R.(N.S.) 513, consd. [paras. 30, 90].

Gray's Velvet Ice Cream Ltd. v. City of Campbellton (1981), 36 N.B.R.(2d) 288; 94 A.P.R. 288; 127 D.L.R.(3d) 436, refd to. [paras. 30, 41, 90].

Royal Anne Hotel Co. v. Ashcroft, [1979] 2 W.W.R. 462 (B.C.C.A.), affing. 1 C.C.L.T. 299, disapprvd. [paras. 36, 66].

Wiebe v. Rural Municipality of De Salaberry (1979), 11 C.C.L.T. 82, disapprvd. [para. 40].

Temple v. City of Melville (1979), 105 D.L.R.(3d) 305, disapprvd. [para. 41].

Fairview Suede and Leather Specialists Ltd. v. City of Dartmouth (1980), 40 N.S.R.(2d) 313; 73 A.P.R. 313, disapprvd. [para. 41].

Buysse v. Shelburne (1984), 28 C.C.L.T. 1, disapprvd. [para. 41].

Schenck v. Ontario (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 595 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1984), 49 O.R.(2d) 556 (Ont. C.A.), disapprvd. [paras. 41, 76].

Schenck v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation and Communications), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 289; 79 N.R. 317; 23 O.A.C. 82, disapprvd. [paras. 41, 76, 90].

Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263, appld. [para. 57].

Pride of Derby and Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd. v. British Celanese Ltd., [1953] Ch. 149, consd. [para. 59].

Walter v. Selfe (1851), 4 De G. & Sm. 315; 64 E.R. 849, consd. [para. 63].

Bamford v. Turnley (1862), 3 B. & S. 66; 122 E.R. 27, consd. [para. 63].

S. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865), 11 H.L.C. 642, consd. [para. 65].

Russell Transport Ltd. v. Ontario Malleable Iron Co., [1952] 4 D.L.R. 719, consd. [para. 65].

Bishop v. Town of Gander (1986), 60 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 310; 181 A.P.R. 310 (Nfld. S.C.), consd. [para. 76].

Vergamini v. Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth (1986), 54 O.R.(2d) 494 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), consd. [para. 76].

Arif v. Fredericton (1986), 77 N.B.R.(2d) 34; 195 A.P.R. 34 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 81].

Allen v. Gulf Oil Refining Ltd., [1981] 1 All E.R. 353 (H.L.), consd. [para. 92].

Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd. v. Greater London Council, [1983] 1 All E.R. 1159 (H.L.), consd. [para. 92].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipalities Act, S.N. 1979, c. 33, sect. 154 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (5th Ed. 1977), p. 423 [para. 43].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1983), pp. 308 [para. 57]; 407 [para. 91].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), p. 514 [para. 43].

Linden, Allen M., Strict Liability, Nuisance and Legislative Authorization (1966), 4 Osgoode Hall L.J. 196 [para. 69].

McLaren, John P.S., Nuisance in Canada, in A.M. Linden, ed., Studies in Canadian Tort Law (1968) [paras. 70-71].

Prosser, W.L., The Principle of Rylands v. Fletcher, in Selected Topics on the Law of Torts (1982), p. 147 [para. 60].

Salmond on Torts (17th Ed. 1977), p. 50 [para. 62].

Street, Harry, The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1976), p. 225 [para. 85].

Williams, David W., Non-natural Use of Land (1973), 32 C.L.J. 310 [para. 58].

Counsel:

Kevin Stamp, for the appellants;

Thomas J. O'Reilly, Q.C., and Paul M. McDonald, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Martin, Whalen, Hennebury & Stamp, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the appellants;

O'Reilly, Noseworthy, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the respondent.

On December 7, 1989, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Wilson, J. (Lamer and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 47;

La Forest, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 48 to 87;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 88 to 98.