This case was heard in the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Division.
In this case the court addressed two motions for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit. The class action was brought by residents of West Saint John, alleging damages to their properties’ plumbing, caused by the City of Saint John’s (the “City”) transition in water source from surface water to groundwater during September 2017 through August 2018. Frances Brownell and Cheryl Steadman, as representative plaintiffs, were among the residents who experienced plumbing issues during this period.
The issues in this case were as follows:
1. Is this an appropriate case to proceed by way of summary judgment?
2. Are the expert opinions of Dr. Bryan Karney and Mr. Kenneth Maltese admissible? What is the weight to be accorded to the expert opinion if they are found to be admissible?
3. Did the City owe a private law duty of care to the Class Members in respect of operational decisions relating to the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project?
4. If a duty of care was owed, what was the applicable standard of care of the City?
5. Did the City breach the standard of care? If so, how?
6. If the City breached the standard of care, did the breach of that standard cause damages to the Class Members?
The court acknowledged the principles set out in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, which triggered a cultural shift in Canada. A summary judgment court may consider and draw inferences from evidence. Additionally, expert opinions from both parties were ultimately deemed admissible by the court, as the disputes over qualifications were not sufficient to exclude their evidence.
The Class Members suggest that the City owed a duty of care to its customers, in supplying a utility. The court concluded that the City owed a duty to the class members, specifically concerning operational decisions related to the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project. The applicable standard of care required the City to collect relevant information and make informed decisions regarding the water source change, including consideration of potential impacts on residents and businesses in West Saint John.
The expected standard of care is that of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances. Reasonability depends on the facts of each case. This analysis may consider the likelihood and gravity of a foreseeable harm, and the potential burden in preventing the harm. Custom, industry practice, and statutory or regulatory standards may also be considered.
Upon evaluating the evidence, the court determined that the City did not breach the standard of care. The court found that the City had engaged appropriate experts and followed their advice throughout the transition process. Despite acknowledging the foreseeable harm posed by the change in water source, the court held that the City’s actions did not amount to negligence.
The court briefly touched on causation, examining the difficulties in establishing a direct link between the City’s alleged failure to implement corrosion control measures and the plumbing issues experienced by the class members. It concluded that the class members had not sufficiently proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the City’s actions or omissions directly caused the damages claimed.
Consequently, the court denied the class members’ motion for summary judgment, granted the City’s motion, and dismissed the class action. The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 plus taxable disbursements to the City.
View the Decision on CanLII: 2022 NBQB 122 (CanLII) | Frances Brownell and Cheryl Steadman v. City of Saint John | CanLII
Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case.
If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.