What is the reason why a farmer refused to serve or send a written notice to the municipality for damages caused by a waterlogged field?

The respondent was aware of the happening of the injury early in April, 1953; he knew then that 60 acres of his land had been flooded. On April 23 and again on April 28 he interviewed the councillor of the municipality. If we accept his evidence in full on neither occasion did he suggest that he intended to make a claim against the municipality. Although aware of the injury he did not give written notice to the municipality hoping that the land would dry up sufficiently to enable him to seed the same. About June 15 he was convinced that the flooded land could not be seeded in 1953. Even at this date he did not serve or send any written notice to the municipality, because, in his own words, “I delayed taking any further steps in order to ascertain whether the surrounding lands produced sufficient crops to sustain a claim for damages.” I think until June 15 the respondent had plainly taken the position that he had suffered a serious injury, but thought that conditions would alter for the better, consequently he would not give notice and, if conditions did so alter, then no notice would ever be given. Such an attitude, as was held in Fuller v. Niagara Falls (City), supra, is not a reasonable excuse.