Attorney General (Ontario) v. Fatehi

Attorney General (Ontario) v. Fatehi

The highway was physically damaged and rendered nonfunctional by the respondent's negligence, so the Crown as owner suffered recoverable property damage; there is no statute or rule that precludes the Crown's common-law right to recover such direct damages and s.33 of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act does not extinguish that right; the loss was not pure economic loss and the appellant is entitled to recover the cost of cleanup and restoration.

Citation
[1984] 2 SCR 536
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Attorney General for the Province of Ontario; Defendant/respondent: Riaz Fatehi
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored
Legal Topics
Crown's Right to Sue, Pure Economic Loss, Duty of Care, Statutory Interpretation of Highway Maintenance Provisions
Source Language
English
Torts Property Public Law Transportation Crown's Right to Sue Pure Economic Loss Duty of Care Statutory Interpretation of Highway Maintenance Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General for the Province of Ontario

Plaintiff/appellant

Riaz Fatehi

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (negligence) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown as owner of a provincial highway can recover cleanup and restoration costs from a negligent driver
  2. 2 Whether the loss claimed by the Crown was pure economic loss or physical damage to Crown property
  3. 3 Whether s.33 of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act or any statute precludes the Crown from suing at common law

Ratio Decidendi

The highway was physically damaged and rendered nonfunctional by the respondent's negligence, so the Crown as owner suffered recoverable property damage; there is no statute or rule that precludes the Crown's common-law right to recover such direct damages and s.33 of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act does not extinguish that right; the loss was not pure economic loss and the appellant is entitled to recover the cost of cleanup and restoration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment restored in favour of the appellant for the cost of cleanup ($300)