Kamloops+v.+Nielsen


 * Kamloops v. Nielsen [1984] (SCC)**


 * FACTS:** While building a house, contractor and owner failed to properly respond to municipal regulations and orders, ignoring them. The city failed to enforce its own stop work order. The house was finished and then sold to another buyer with no awareness of its defects. Eventually, the foundation (the object of the regulations and orders) proved defective.

(1) Can a municipality be held liable for negligence? (2) Should recovery be allowed for pure economic loss?
 * ISSUES:**


 * HOLDING:** City’s appeal is dismissed with costs.


 * REASONING:** (Wilson J.)


 * (1)** According to Anns, it was established that a municipality could be held liable. In order to established whether a public body owes a private duty of care:
 * (a)** Suggested that the more “operational” as opposed to “policy” oriented a decision or action by a public body is, the more it should be susceptible to a Duty of Care.
 * (b)** In light of the governing legislation, then ask **(i)** whether there is a sufficiently lcose relationship as to warrant having had the victim in contemplation and **(ii)** whether there are considerations that ought to limit the scope of application.
 * NOTE:** addresses the notion that there are floodgate safeties built into this. **(i)** applicable/subordinate legislation must impose private law duty on public body before //Anns// applies; **(ii)** principle will not apply to policy decisions made in bona fide exercise of discretion – addresses concern over public officials’ ability to act; **(iii)** (only area for honest concern) where operational duty is also carrying out a secondary policy consideration.


 * (2)** Looking back to Cardozo in Ultramares, acknowledges a strong history for exclusion of such recovery (Cardozo: “expose [defendants] to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class”), but finds that this concern of such widened liability to be unfounded in this case. Because the victims will be “limited to the class of owners and occupiers of the property at the time the damage presents itself”. Argues that loss from policy decisions will not be compensable, but loss arising from the operational stage of a policy decision (implementation) will be, or if the discretion is exercised in bad faith.


 * RATIO:** Even public entities may be found to owe a private duty of care.