Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp

Majority: s.11 of the Public Authorities Protection Act applies only to aspects of statutory powers that have a public aspect or connotation; routine operational/managerial tasks (such as snow removal) are subordinate/private in character and are not acts in execution of a statutory or other public duty for the purposes of s.11, so the six‑month limitation did not bar the appellant’s action.

Citation
[1979] 1 SCR 275
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Carmen Berardinelli; Respondent / Defendant: Ontario Housing Corporation; Respondent / Defendant: Her Majesty in Right of the Province of Ontario; Third Party Respondent: Paul Pickett (Paul Pickett Landscaping)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Action (personal Injury / Tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Interlocutory Point Under Rule 124 (point of Law Re Limitation Period)
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); dissent by Martland J.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Public Authorities Protection Act S.11, Crown Agency Liability, Statutory Duty Vs Private/operational Functions, Housing Development Act S.6(2), Interlocutory Point Under Procedural Rule
Source Language
English
Tort Administrative Law Public Law Statute of Limitations Limitation of Actions Public Authorities Protection Act S.11 Crown Agency Liability Statutory Duty Vs Private/operational Functions +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carmen Berardinelli

Appellant / Plaintiff

Ontario Housing Corporation

Respondent / Defendant

Her Majesty in Right of the Province of Ontario

Respondent / Defendant

Paul Pickett (Paul Pickett Landscaping)

Third Party Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action (personal Injury / Tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Interlocutory Point Under Rule 124 (point of Law Re Limitation Period)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ontario Housing Corporation is entitled to rely on s.11 of the Public Authorities Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether a Crown agency is protected by s.11 in respect of all functions including operational/managerial acts
  3. 3 Whether removal of ice/snow was an exercise of statutory or other public duty or was a private operational matter

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: s.11 of the Public Authorities Protection Act applies only to aspects of statutory powers that have a public aspect or connotation; routine operational/managerial tasks (such as snow removal) are subordinate/private in character and are not acts in execution of a statutory or other public duty for the purposes of s.11, so the six‑month limitation did not bar the appellant’s action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); dissent by Martland J.

Orders

  • Respondent Ontario Housing Corporation is not entitled to rely on s.11 of The Public Authorities Protection Act on the agreed facts
  • Action is not struck as statute‑barred at this interlocutory stage