Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd.

Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd.

Once a municipality elects to inspect under a statutory inspection scheme, it owes a duty of care to those reasonably foreseeably harmed by negligent implementation; owner negligence does not negate that duty except in rare cases of deliberate 'flouting' that make inspection powerless; on the facts the City’s inspector failed to exercise reasonable care and was negligent, so the trial judge’s finding of liability and apportionment are restored.

Citation
2000 SCC 12
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: James Ingles; Respondent/defendant: The Corporation of the City of Toronto; Co‑defendant/contractor: Tutkaluk Construction Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Negligence; Municipal Law; Building Inspection / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment Restoring Trial Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the trial court restored
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Municipal Liability, Building Inspections, Contributory Negligence, Anns/kamloops Test, Owner‑builder Responsibility, Apportionment of Damages
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Torts Negligence Building Regulation Duty of Care Municipal Liability Building Inspections Contributory Negligence +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Ingles

Appellant/plaintiff

The Corporation of the City of Toronto

Respondent/defendant

Tutkaluk Construction Ltd.

Co‑defendant/contractor

Procedural Posture

Negligence; Municipal Law; Building Inspection / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment Restoring Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a municipality owes a private law duty of care when it undertakes building inspections pursuant to a statutory scheme
  2. 2 Whether the Anns/Kamloops two‑stage test is satisfied in the context of municipal building inspections
  3. 3 Whether the homeowner’s conduct in allowing construction to proceed without a permit removed him from the class owed a duty of care or otherwise absolved the municipality of liability

Ratio Decidendi

Once a municipality elects to inspect under a statutory inspection scheme, it owes a duty of care to those reasonably foreseeably harmed by negligent implementation; owner negligence does not negate that duty except in rare cases of deliberate 'flouting' that make inspection powerless; on the facts the City’s inspector failed to exercise reasonable care and was negligent, so the trial judge’s finding of liability and apportionment are restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the trial court restored

Orders

  • Restore trial judge’s apportionment: appellant 6% liable, City 14% liable, Tutkaluk 80% liable
  • Judgment against the City and Tutkaluk for $49,368.80 CAD (reduced from $52,520 CAD to account for appellant’s 6% fault)