Ottawa (City) v. Munroe

Ottawa (City) v. Munroe

Majority (Kerwin C.J. and Rand J.) held there was no evidence the wash-room’s ordinary structural features amounted to a concealed danger or trap; absent a trap a landlord/occupier retained in possession owes no duty to alter such features for licensees including children, therefore no actionable negligence was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1954] SCR 756
Parties
Appellant / Defendant (landlord): Corporation of the City of Ottawa; Respondent / Plaintiff (infant): Joseph Charles Daniel Munroe (infant); Respondent / Plaintiff (next Friend and Father): Bernard Munroe
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 November 1954
Procedural Posture
Tort — Negligence (occupier/landlord Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiffs reversed and action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Licensee Vs Invitee, Allurement/trap Doctrine, Hidden/concealed Danger, Supervision of Infants
Source Language
english
Torts Negligence Landlord and Tenant Law Occupier Liability Child Safety Law Duty of Care Licensee Vs Invitee Allurement/trap Doctrine +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporation of the City of Ottawa

Appellant / Defendant (landlord)

Joseph Charles Daniel Munroe (infant)

Respondent / Plaintiff (infant)

Bernard Munroe

Respondent / Plaintiff (next Friend and Father)

Procedural Posture

Tort — Negligence (occupier/landlord Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wash-room configuration constituted a ‘trap’ or concealed danger/allurement to children
  2. 2 Whether a landlord/occupier owes a duty to a licensee child greater than to the tenant
  3. 3 Whether the infant was a licensee or trespasser and whether any license was subject to implied supervision

Ratio Decidendi

Majority (Kerwin C.J. and Rand J.) held there was no evidence the wash-room’s ordinary structural features amounted to a concealed danger or trap; absent a trap a landlord/occupier retained in possession owes no duty to alter such features for licensees including children, therefore no actionable negligence was established and the action must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiffs reversed and action dismissed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Costs to appellant if demanded