Vesuvius Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City) et al., (1991) 8 B.C.A.C. 6 (CA)

• Judge: Lambert, Macfarlane and Proudfoot, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 07, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 6 (CA)

Vesuvius Inv. Ltd. v. Victoria (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 6 (CA);

    17 W.A.C. 6

MLB headnote and full text

Vesuvius Investments Ltd. (respondent/appellant on cross-appeal) v. The Corporation of the City of Victoria (appellant) and Douglas Koch (respondent on cross-appeal)

(VO1032)

Indexed As: Vesuvius Investments Ltd. v. Victoria (City) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lambert, Macfarlane and Proudfoot, JJ.A.

June 7, 1991.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the City of Victoria and two employees in negligence after failing to obtain a neighbourhood pub licence. The trial judge allowed the plaintiff's claim against the City. The City appealed. The plaintiff's cross-appealed the dismissal of the claim against an employee.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Torts - Topic 8990

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Negligent words - Failure to supply advice - The plaintiff sought a neighbourhood pub licence - It requested a pre-clearance letter from the city - The city responded that prior rezoning was required - A senior planner for the city explained what the letter said and how to apply for rezoning - The trial judge held that there was no duty owed by the senior planner to provide advice on matters other than rezoning procedure and dismissed the plaintiff's negligence action against him - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision - See paragraphs 4, 14.

Torts - Topic 9155

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials or authorities - Municipal authorities - The plaintiff knew it needed a pre-clearance letter from the city for its application for a neighbourhood pub licence - Its application for the letter admitted neighbourhood controversy - The city responded that prior rezoning would be required - The plaintiff failed to obtain a licence - It sued the city and its employee, submitting that it relied on them for advice on how to obtain a licence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that reliance was not justifiable and reasonable and dismissed the plaintiff's claim - See paragraphs 12 to 13.

Torts - Topic 9155

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials or authorities - Municipal authorities - The plaintiff sought a neighbourhood pub licence - It applied for a pre-clearance letter from the city and admitted that the application was controversial - The city responded that prior rezoning was required - A pre-clearance letter was given to another applicant for a nearby pub, where there was no neighbourhood opposition - The British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to find that the City failed in a duty of care owed to the plaintiff - See paragraphs 5 to 11.

Cases Noticed:

Edgeworth Construction Ltd. et al. v. N.D. Lea & Associates et al. (1991), 53 B.C.L.R.(2d) 180, refd to. [para. 5].

Counsel:

Alan V.W. Hincks, for the respondent, Vesuvius Investments Ltd.;

   Georgeann Glover, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Lambert, Macfarlane and Proudfoot, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On June 7, 1991, the decision of the court was delivered orally, including the following opinions.

Macfarlane, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 15;

Lambert, J.A. - see paragraphs 16, 18;

Proudfoot, J.A. - see paragraph 17.