Articles
<< back to all ArticlesBy-Law Newsletter: A Shrinking Shield? Municipal Exemptions from Liability Narrowly Interpreted
A Shrinking Shield? Municipal Exemptions from Liability Narrowly Interpreted
To what degree are municipalities liable for damages arising from the inspection and maintenance of public infrastructure, and for damages resulting when drivers collide with things adjacent to roads?
At first glance, sections 530 and 533 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) would appear to provide municipalities with a broad exemption from liability for these types of claims:
- Section 530 says that a municipality is not liable for damage caused by systems of inspection and maintenance, the manner in which inspections/maintenance are performed, or the “frequency, infrequency or absence” of inspections/maintenance.
- Section 533 provides a seemingly broad exemption of liability for damage resulting from items commonly found adjacent to roads (walls, fences, guardrails, rocks, trees, etc.).
However, two recent Alberta cases adopt a narrow interpretation of these exemptions, raising questions about the actual extent of protection from liability afforded by these provisions.
Pyke v Calgary (City)
Pyke was a 2022 decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. The case considered whether the City of Calgary had any liability for a vehicle collision on Glenmore Trail in the winter of 2014. The Court concluded that the City was partially liable.
The collision in question took place after a pick-up truck hit a patch of black ice, careened onto the median, and vaulted over the median barrier. The barrier was in the middle of the median, approximately five feet back from the curb. A build-up of dirt and gravel had accumulated on the median over time, and the build-up served as a “ramp”, which helped the truck to jump the barrier.
The Court reviewed the scope of the City’s duty under s 532 of the MGA to keep roads in a reasonable state of repair. It noted this duty includes both the permanent features of roads, which stem from their design, and the construction, repair and maintenance of the roads. In this case, the Court found that the duty extended so far as to also include the medians and median barriers. The Court also found the City was required to meet the standard of regularly examining road infrastructure to ensure it met safety standards, as set out in the City’s own policies.
The Court concluded the accident was caused by the failure to keep the road in a reasonable state of repair. The Court rejected the argument that the City did not know about the build-up of dirt and gravel: it was easily observed visually, and there was evidence that City personnel had flagged the issue previously.
The Court stressed that the section 532 duty to maintain roads in a reasonable state of repair, and the possibility of liability if the municipality does not fulfill that duty, “promotes public safety consistent with an overarching purpose of the MGA.” In the Court’s opinion, it logically followed that provisions exempting municipalities from liability for endangering public safety, such as sections 530 and 533, should be interpreted narrowly. The Court noted that “[i]f municipalities are relieved from any liability relating to maintenance of roads by [section 530], then there will almost never be a situation where there can be liability for failing to keep roads in a reasonable state of repair.” In a similar vein, the Court held that section 533, considered in light of the purpose of the MGA, also did not exempt municipalities from the duty to keep roads and road infrastructure in a reasonable state of repair.
Legare v Acme (Village)
In this 2023 decision, the Court again narrowly interpreted the exemption from liability for damage attributable to inspection and maintenance set out in section 530 of the MGA.
Legare was an appeal from a decision of the Provincial Court. The Provincial Court found the municipality was liable under s 532 of the MGA for the loss in value of a residential property resulting from a violent sewer backup. The backup was partially caused by a sewer line the municipality knew to be narrower than provincial standards allowed. The Provincial Court found that the municipality owed a duty of care under s 532 of the MGA and that this duty was an exception to the “shield” otherwise provided by s 530 of the MGA.
The Provincial Court decision was upheld on appeal to the Court of King’s Bench. The Court held that while s 530 exempts municipalities from liability for damage attributable to inspection and maintenance, s 532 imposes liability on municipalities for failing to keep “public works in, on or above the roads” (which included the sewer in the present case) in a reasonable state of repair. As in the Pyke case, the Court held that a broad interpretation of the exemption from liability in s 530 would render the imposition of liability in s 532 meaningless.
In this case, the Court viewed the narrow diameter sewer line as “a defect in the original design.” Where public roads and works have design defects, they can be considered to be “in a state of disrepair,” which a failure to address could give rise to a claim under s 532 of the MGA.
In the Court’s view, once the municipality became aware of the state of disrepair, it had a choice: upgrade the sewer line to the required standard, or implement a heightened regimen of inspection and maintenance. This heightened regimen of inspection and maintenance is different than the “routine inspection and maintenance of infrastructure in a good state of repair,” to which the exemption in s 532 of the MGA applies.
Conclusions
Taken together, the Pyke and Legare cases suggest the exemptions from liability for municipalities contained in sections 530 and 533 of the MGA may be interpreted narrowly by the courts, particularly when it can be shown that a municipality knew (or ought to have known) of the potential for loss or damages arising from the condition of public infrastructure. This emphasizes the importance of municipalities having policies and procedures in place to ensure that once potentially unsafe conditions are reported to (or otherwise come to the attention of) the municipality that there is an adequate and timely response.
Stay informed with By-Law Newsletter, an annual newsletter bringing you updates and legal insights on topics that Alberta municipalities are facing today. Watch for new articles over the coming months or sign up for our mailing list to receive them directly to your inbox.
This post is meant to provide information only and is not intended to provide legal advice. Although every effort has been made to provide current and accurate information, changes to the law may cause the information in this post to be outdated.
