Can an owner-builder be a defence to a finding of negligence on the part of a municipal inspector?

Canada (Federal), Canada

The following excerpt is from Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd., [2000] 1 SCR 298, 2000 SCC 12 (CanLII):

31 There is some ambiguity in the decision in Rothfield v. Manolakos as to where in the traditional tort law analysis the consideration of an owner-builder’s negligence should take place, namely whether the analysis should take place in the determination of whether a municipality owes a duty of care to the negligent owner-builder, or whether the negligence of an owner-builder can serve as a defence to a finding of negligence on the part of a municipal inspector. This ambiguity stems from the fact that La Forest J. began his analysis of the consequences of the negligence of an owner-builder by quoting the dictum of Lord Wilberforce in Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, supra. At p. 504, Lord Wilberforce states: To whom the duty is owed. There is, in my opinion, no difficulty about this. A reasonable man in the position of the inspector must realise that if the foundations are covered in without adequate depth or strength as required by the byelaws, injury to safety or health may be suffered by owners or occupiers of the house. The duty is owed to them, not of course to a negligent building owner, the source of his own loss. Lord Wilberforce’s dictum does imply that an examination of the negligence of an owner-builder will take place within the two-step analysis of whether a duty of care is owed by a municipality in conducting an inspection. As a result, the analysis of the consequences of the negligence of an owner-builder in Rothfield v. Manolakos, supra, also uses language which implies that the inquiry into whether a municipality is liable for its negligent inspection will end at the duty stage of the analysis if the plaintiff’s conduct is found to be such as to make him or her the sole source of his or her own loss. Upon further examination, however, it is my view that the true intention of the decision in Rothfield v. Manolakos was to create a defence available to municipalities in a very limited set of circumstances.

Other Questions


What is the test for a municipality to be held liable for negligence in a civil action brought by a plaintiff against a municipal official? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What are the findings of a judge's finding that the affidavit in support of an application for a wiretap was not supported by probable cause and was stale? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does a municipal inspector owe a duty of care to owner-builders? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
Is negligent conduct of counsel not sufficient to find a breach of natural justice? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the test for finding a finding in a motion seeking to apply section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Civil Code of Civil Procedure? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What are the findings of the Court of Appeal in the Supplementary Findings? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the findings of a federal court's findings of fact and conclusions of law de novo? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for an application to compel the Court to approve the publication of both the findings of an independent review and the analysis of both findings? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the test for determining whether an individual has committed an act of gross negligence in the context of an allegation of intentional negligence? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does the burden determination on an asylum application or the firm finding of an asylum seeker's firm finding need to be considered dispositive? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.