Winnipeg+Condominium+Corp+no+36+v.+Bird+Construction+Co.


 * Winnipeg Condo Corp v. Bird [1995] (SCC):**


 * FACTS:** The owner of a condo building (not developer, 2ndary owner) became concerned about the masonry work. Turned out that it was defective, had to replace, brought action in negligence against Bird who did the original work.


 * ISSUE:** Can a general contractor be held liable to a subsequent owner of a building despite the lack of contractual privity?


 * HOLDING:** Yes.

Lastly, though some may seek refuge in the notion of //caveat emptor//, the rationale from the rule (that the consumer is best placed to detect the risks or defects) clearly does not hold when speaking of a building whose deficiencies are not even always detected by experts, let alone the purchasers.
 * REASONING:** In large part, this finding is based on policy considerations. There is a large interest in ensuring that contractors do their work up to a standard that protects subsequent occupiers. Despite the abandonment of the Anns reasoning in the UK, it is still very much alive in Canada, and it must be remembered that in speaking about buildings, which tend to have a long life of use, it is not unreasonable to expect the constructor to envision a multiplicity of owners. It is further reasonable that the builder should have the safety and healt of **all** these owners in mind.


 * RATIO:** There are no policy considerations that would exclude a contractor from being held to owe a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that a building does not contain defects that pose “foreseeable and substantial danger” to the healthy and safety of occupants. (This is almost all a direct quote from para 54).


 * COMMENTS:** This case has a great deal of fine discussion in separating precedents that are distinguished and precedents that are followed. It is a useful illustration of very fine techniques of common law reasoning. It is worth reading if only for this demonstration.