Case information

Property — Real property — Covenants — Lower court finding covenant on title to each individual resident homeowners’ property effective to release claims advanced against District — Negligence — Duty of care — Proximity — Lower courts finding it plain and obvious approving officer did not owe a common law duty of care to resident homeowners at first stage of Anns/Cooper test — Whether local governments can absolve themselves of liability to ultimate purchasers for their actions in land development and planning processes by embedding release into statutory use covenant that runs with land — Does proximity analysis for public authority negligence exclude clear neighbours at law if there are no direct interactions between government actor and victim — Is foreseeable risk to life and property still a recognized category of proximity — Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

These appeals concern a subdivision in the District of Sechelt, B.C. in which the applicant homeowners’ property is located. The homeowners have been ordered to evacuate their properties as they are declared to be unsafe for occupation as a result of geotechnical instability (risk of subsidence which is the sinking or settling of the ground surface, caused by natural processes or human activities) and other problems. The homeowners claimed against the District for the negligent approval of the subdivision and also claimed in negligence against the former approving officer, who authorized the subdivision.

The judge concluded that the covenants registered pursuant to s. 219 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250 (“LTA”) did not release the applicant, resident homeowners’ claims against the respondent, District. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judge’s order and issued a declaration that the resident homeowners have released the District from all claims alleged or damages sought.

The judge also allowed the application by the District and Mr. Parfitt to strike pleadings against Mr. Parfitt, as the approving officer and dismissed the claim against him. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.