Repairs in the Normal Course of Business: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
}}
}}


=Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc v Sturm, 2014 CanLII 1847 (ON SCSM)==
==Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc v Sturm, 2014 CanLII 1847 (ON SCSM)==


1. On September 14, 2012, the defendant drove her car into a hydro pole owned by the plaintiff and it sues her for the cost of replacing it.  The court reserved judgment for further consideration of the damages issues.  For the following reasons, the plaintiff’s claim is allowed in part and judgment is granted in the amount of $6,084.82, plus interest.


:...


13. There are a handful of cases dealing with whether and to what extent overhead costs may be claimed as damages in a negligence case.  Before reviewing those, it is useful to start with first principles.
14. The relevant measure of damages in tort is the restitutio in integrum principle, which requires the court to place the plaintiff, insofar as possible, in the position it would have been in had the tort not been committed: <i>Barber v. Vrozos (2010), 2010 ONCA 570 (CanLII), 269 O.A.C. 108 (C.A.), at para. 86</i><ref name="Barber"/>.  The plaintiff must prove causation of damages based on the “but for” test - in other words it must prove that the damages would have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence: <i>Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333 at para. 21-23.</i><ref name="Hanke"/>
15. Damages may be assessed through estimation if a reasoned estimation is possible based on the evidence: <i>Martin v. Goldfarb (1998), 1998 CanLII 4150 (ON CA), 41 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 516.</i><ref name="Martin"/>
16. Turning from the general to more specific authorities, the plaintiff cited a single case: Guelph (City) Light & Heat Commissioners v. United Dairy & Poultry Co-operative Ltd., 1966 CanLII 192 (ON SC), [1966] 2 O.R. 467 (Co. Ct.), affirmed [1966] 2 O.R. 469n (C.A.).  The defendant drove a truck into  a power bank and the plaintiff sued for the cost of repair in the amount of $813.  Of that sum, $279 was for emergency work to restore power and was not disputed.  The dispute was over the balance of about $500 for replacement of two hydro poles which were about half-way through their expected useful lives when damaged.  The plaintiff conceded a depreciation allowance on the replacement poles and materials but not on the labour component of the cost of repairs it effected using its own forces.




<ref name="Sturm">Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc v Sturm, 2014 CanLII 1847 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/g2s70>, retrieved on 2022-05-31</ref>
<ref name="Sturm">Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc v Sturm, 2014 CanLII 1847 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/g2s70>, retrieved on 2022-05-31</ref>
 
<ref name="Barber">Barber v. Molson Sport & Entertainment Inc., 2010 ONCA 570 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2cfv7>, retrieved on 2022-05-31</ref>
<ref name="Hanke">Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2007] 1 SCR 333, <https://canlii.ca/t/1qfl8>, retrieved on 2022-05-31
<ref name="Martin">Martin v. Goldfarb, 1998 CanLII 4150 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/6gbl>, retrieved on 2022-05-31</ref>
</ref>
==References==
==References==

Revision as of 15:08, 31 May 2022


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID: 1924
Page Categories: [Tort Law], [Contract Law]
Citation: Repairs in the Normal Course of Business, CLNP 1924, <7K>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2022/05/31

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc v Sturm, 2014 CanLII 1847 (ON SCSM)

1. On September 14, 2012, the defendant drove her car into a hydro pole owned by the plaintiff and it sues her for the cost of replacing it. The court reserved judgment for further consideration of the damages issues. For the following reasons, the plaintiff’s claim is allowed in part and judgment is granted in the amount of $6,084.82, plus interest.

...

13. There are a handful of cases dealing with whether and to what extent overhead costs may be claimed as damages in a negligence case. Before reviewing those, it is useful to start with first principles.

14. The relevant measure of damages in tort is the restitutio in integrum principle, which requires the court to place the plaintiff, insofar as possible, in the position it would have been in had the tort not been committed: Barber v. Vrozos (2010), 2010 ONCA 570 (CanLII), 269 O.A.C. 108 (C.A.), at para. 86[1]. The plaintiff must prove causation of damages based on the “but for” test - in other words it must prove that the damages would have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333 at para. 21-23.[2]

15. Damages may be assessed through estimation if a reasoned estimation is possible based on the evidence: Martin v. Goldfarb (1998), 1998 CanLII 4150 (ON CA), 41 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 516.[3]

16. Turning from the general to more specific authorities, the plaintiff cited a single case: Guelph (City) Light & Heat Commissioners v. United Dairy & Poultry Co-operative Ltd., 1966 CanLII 192 (ON SC), [1966] 2 O.R. 467 (Co. Ct.), affirmed [1966] 2 O.R. 469n (C.A.). The defendant drove a truck into a power bank and the plaintiff sued for the cost of repair in the amount of $813. Of that sum, $279 was for emergency work to restore power and was not disputed. The dispute was over the balance of about $500 for replacement of two hydro poles which were about half-way through their expected useful lives when damaged. The plaintiff conceded a depreciation allowance on the replacement poles and materials but not on the labour component of the cost of repairs it effected using its own forces.


[4] [1] Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag </ref>

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Barber v. Molson Sport & Entertainment Inc., 2010 ONCA 570 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2cfv7>, retrieved on 2022-05-31
  2. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Hanke
  3. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Martin
  4. ↑ Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc v Sturm, 2014 CanLII 1847 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/g2s70>, retrieved on 2022-05-31
Retrieved from "https://riverview.legal/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Repairs_in_the_Normal_Course_of_Business&oldid=17767"