Prentice v. City of Sault Ste. Marie

Prentice v. City of Sault Ste. Marie

The statutory provisions in s.460(1) and s.460(4) do not displace a plaintiff's common law right to sue a municipality for special damages caused by a nuisance negligently created by its servants; the 1913 amendment to s.460(2) limited the time for statutory claims but did not abolish the common law cause of action, and the accident site was not a sidewalk within s.460(3) so the gross negligence question did not arise.

Citation
[1928] SCR 309
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: John Prentice and Sarah Prentice; Defendant/respondent: The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1928
Procedural Posture
Municipal Law Tort (nuisance/personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Misfeasance, Highway Liability, Statutory Interpretation, Notice Requirements, Personal Injury
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Tort Public Law Nuisance Misfeasance Highway Liability Statutory Interpretation Notice Requirements +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Prentice and Sarah Prentice

Plaintiffs/appellants

The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Municipal Law Tort (nuisance/personal Injury) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.460(1) and s.460(4) of the Consolidated Municipal Act, 1922 apply to a claim for special damages caused by negligent misfeasance of municipal servants creating a nuisance on a highway
  2. 2 Whether the place of accident was a "sidewalk" within s.460(3) and thus engaged the gross negligence exception
  3. 3 Whether the 1913 amendment inserting "whether the want of repair was the result of nonfeasance or misfeasance" extended statutory notice and limitation provisions to common law misfeasance claims

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory provisions in s.460(1) and s.460(4) do not displace a plaintiff's common law right to sue a municipality for special damages caused by a nuisance negligently created by its servants; the 1913 amendment to s.460(2) limited the time for statutory claims but did not abolish the common law cause of action, and the accident site was not a sidewalk within s.460(3) so the gross negligence question did not arise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in this Court and in the Appellate Division
  • Judgment of Rose J. restored