Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

Hospitality Investments Ltd.  v. Everett Lord Building Construction Ltd., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 605


The Town of St. Andrews                                                                  Appellant




Hospitality Investments Ltd.                                                             Respondent




The Union of British Columbia Municipalities,

the Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia

and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities                               Interveners


Indexed as:  Hospitality Investments Ltd.  v. Everett Lord Building Construction Ltd.


File No.:  24830.


1996:  November 8.


Present:  La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.


on appeal from the court of appeal for new brunswick


                   Torts ‑‑ Negligence ‑‑ Duty of care ‑‑ Municipal liability ‑‑ Municipality not enforcing building by-law ‑‑ Building deficient  ‑‑ No duty of care owed.


                   APPEAL from a judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (1995), 166 N.B.R. (2d) 241, 425 A.P.R. 241, 3 D.M.P.L. 175, allowing an appeal from a judgment of Jones J. (1993), 143 N.B.R. (2d) 258, 366 A.P.R. 258,  2 D.M.P.L. 385.  Appeal allowed.


                   Barry R. Morrison, Q.C., and Timothy M. Hopkins, for the appellant.


                   Paulette C. Garnett, Q.C., and Rodney J. Gillis, Q.C., for the respondent.


                   John R. Singleton and Kate McLean, for the interveners.


                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by


1                 La Forest J. --  Despite your valiant efforts, Ms. Garnett, we are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed.


2                 We agree with the trial judge that no duty of care was owed to the respondent in the circumstances of this case.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1995), 166 N.B.R. (2d) 241, is reversed, and the trial judgment (1993), 143 N.B.R. (2d) 258, is restored, the whole with costs throughout.


                   Judgment accordingly.


                   Solicitors for the appellant:  Clark, Drummie & Company, Saint John.


                   Solicitors for the respondent:  Gilbert, McGloan, Gillis, Saint John.


                   Solicitors for the interveners:  Singleton, Urquhart, Scott, Vancouver.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.