Hedley Byrne and Rylands v. Fletcher can both support causes of action involving damage to land. There have been attempts to exclude liability by statute. However, if the tort claim relates to land, it is not excluded in most statutes. It does not matter if the claim is based in negligent misstatement or negligent action. The claim, either way, is based on damage to land or real property. There is a tort to real property whether it is caused by negligent instruction, misstatement or physical deed. The class discussed and allowed by the statute involves injury to property. Then it allows claims involving injury to the real person. Here is an example of a situation: Click here.
Hedley Byrne and Rylands v. Fletcher can both support causes of action involving damage to land. There have been attempts to exclude liability by statute. However, if the tort claim relates to land, it is not excluded in most statutes. It does not matter if the claim is based in negligent misstatement or negligent action. The claim, either way, is based on damage to land or real property. There is a tort to real property whether it is caused by negligent instruction, misstatement or physical deed. The class discussed and allowed by the statute involves injury to property. Then it allows claims involving injury to the real person. Here is an example of a situation:
Before we proceed, politics and the politician are subject to rules just like the architect, carpenter, the Judge and the General. The politician is not elected by rules only to play absolute authority and King and then break them all. The purpose of democracy is socioeconomic management by consensus. Changes are decided by consensus. I have no fear of a black African graduate with an Anglicanism name becoming a politician. He is only a public servant which is what he was trained to do in a publicly funded University. So relax and just read the UDHR and the OHCHR and then you win. What remains undone; unresolved? It is the opinion of the majority and gee law as well as academia and industry that every citizen must have a universal minimum income support. The only condition should be that they reach the age of majority. In fact the program in Quebec would satisfy all of Canada's population and we will make French education mandatory and a little mathematics with throw classics that will include Rousseau, Macbeth and the Count of Monte Cristo. We must remember that Tort is a creature of equity. Where there is conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. There was an opinion that Negligent misrepresentation was excluded as a class of tort in the NB Proceedings Against The Crown Act. It is not mentioned as any excluded class of Tort. See S.4(1). Even if it was excluded, we know that the Law of England and Wales is the Law of New Brunswick and the Law of Canada for that matter. As such, where there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. Read the following: The farmer suffered some blight and made a claim for Assistance from a Land commission. He spent monies to cure the blight, using chemicals and was supposed to be compensated for the monies spent. There may have been some chemical damage to the land. He sued. The situation was decided as follows although his claim should have succeeded under the common law and regardless of the Crown Proceeding Act for the reasons stated above that confirm his claim for damage to property is not excluded. The class of Tort in question here is a Tort against property regardless of the method or cause as in word or deed. Torts against property is a class of tort allowed by statute. Please read the excerpt;
Therefore, assuming without deciding, that proof of the facts alleged by the plaintiff would establish the elements of a claim for negligent misrepresentation on a balance of probabilities, such a claim would still fail as it does not fall within the language of subsection 4(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.
See B.M.G. Farming Ltd v. New Brunswick, 2010 NBQB 151 (CanLII) for the full judgement.
Section 4(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act states the following with section 4(1) being the operative provision for the farmer:
Before we proceed, politics and the politician are subject to rules just like the architect, carpenter, the Judge and the General. The politician is not elected by rules only to play absolute authority and King and then break them all. The purpose of democracy is socioeconomic management by consensus. Changes are decided by consensus. I have no fear of a black African graduate with an Anglicanism name becoming a politician. He is only a public servant which is what he was trained to do in a publicly funded University. So relax and just read the UDHR and the OHCHR and then you win. What remains undone; unresolved? It is the opinion of the majority and gee law as well as academia and industry that every citizen must have a universal minimum income support. The only condition should be that they reach the age of majority. In fact the program in Quebec would satisfy all of Canada's population and we will make French education mandatory and a little mathematics with throw classics that will include Rousseau, Macbeth and the Count of Monte Cristo. We must remember that Tort is a creature of equity. Where there is conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. There was an opinion that Negligent misrepresentation was excluded as a class of tort in the NB Proceedings Against The Crown Act. It is not mentioned as any excluded class of Tort. See S.4(1). Even if it was excluded, we know that the Law of England and Wales is the Law of New Brunswick and the Law of Canada for that matter. As such, where there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. Read the following: The farmer suffered some blight and made a claim for Assistance from a Land commission. He spent monies to cure the blight, using chemicals and was supposed to be compensated for the monies spent. There may have been some chemical damage to the land. He sued. The situation was decided as follows although his claim should have succeeded under the common law and regardless of the Crown Proceeding Act for the reasons stated above that confirm his claim for damage to property is not excluded. The class of Tort in question here is a Tort against property regardless of the method or cause as in word or deed. Torts against property is a class of tort allowed by statute. Please read the excerpt;
" I conclude that Gauthier cannot be relied on as an authority when determining whether a claim for negligent misrepresentation is actionable against the provincial Crown in the Province of New Brunswick. With all due respect for my colleague’s differing opinion, I conclude that the state of the law in the Province of New Brunswick concerning the tort of negligent misrepresentation is as found by Stevenson J. in Daigle and Rideout and the cases that followed. An action in negligent misrepresentation cannot be maintained against the provincial Crown in New Brunswick as it does not fall within those classes of tort enumerated in the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.
See B.M.G. Farming Ltd v. New Brunswick, 2010 NBQB 151 (CanLII) for the full judgement.
Section 4(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act states the following with section 4(1) being the operative provision for the farmer:
Liability of Crown respecting Tort
4(1)Subject to this Act, the Crown is subject to all liabilities in tort to which, if it were a person of full age and capacity, it would be subject,
(a) in respect of a tort to real or personal property, or causing bodily injury, committed by an officer or agent;
(b) in respect of a breach of a duty that a person owes to his servant or agent by reason of being his employer;
Liability for acts of officers
4(2)No proceedings lie against the Crown under paragraph (1)(a) in respect of an act or omission of an officer or agent unless the act or omission would, apart from this Act, have given rise to a cause of action in tort against that officer or agent or his personal representative.
Even if his claim was statute barred by the above provision while it is certainly allowed by S.4(1), the Courts of England and Wales confirm that where there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. His claim can proceed.
Warren A. Lyon, Angel Ronan( TM) Clerk.
Even if his claim was statute barred by the above provision while it is certainly allowed by S.4(1), the Courts of England and Wales confirm that where there is a conflict between law and equity, equity prevails. His claim can proceed.
Warren A. Lyon, Angel Ronan( TM) Clerk.
Comments
Post a Comment