Girard v Campbellton (City), 2026 NBKB 136 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Fiona Costello
The Plaintiff, Armand Girard, commenced an action against the City of Campbellton following an alleged slip and fall while ascending the stairs to the Memorial Civic Centre on February 25, 2022. He claimed the City was negligent in failing to maintain the staircase in a reasonably safe condition and in failing to remove snow and ice.
The City brought a motion seeking dismissal of the action on the basis that it was barred under both the Limitation of Actions Act and the Local Governance Act. The City also asked that the motion be converted into one for summary judgment and that summary judgment be granted.
The Court first considered whether the action was commenced within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation of Actions Act. Section 5(1)(a) requires a claim to be brought within two years from the date it is discovered. Under s. 5(2), a claim is generally discovered when the claimant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that they had suffered a loss or injury, that it was caused by an act or omission, and that the act or omission was that of the defendant.
Applying these provisions, the Court found that the Plaintiff’s claim was discovered on the date of the alleged fall. Although the Statement of Claim was filed on February 26, 2024, the action was not statute-barred because the two-year anniversary fell on a Sunday and, pursuant to s. 22(j) of the Interpretation Act, where a limitation period expires on a holiday, including a Sunday, it is extended to the next business day.
The Court then considered the notice requirements in s. 181 of the Local Governance Act. Section 181(1) requires a person claiming damages arising from a municipality’s alleged failure to reasonably maintain municipally owned property to provide written notice of the claim to the clerk of the local government within 90 days of the incident. Under s. 181(2), a claimant who fails to provide such notice is barred from bringing the action unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.
The Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not provide the written notice required by s. 181(1). Instead, he relied on the exception in s. 181(2)(a), which requires both a reasonable excuse for failing to provide notice and an absence of prejudice to the municipality. He submitted that his poor literacy skills, preference for communicating in person, and verbal notice to the General Manager of the Memorial Civic Centre on March 15, 2022, constituted a reasonable excuse. He further argued that the City suffered no prejudice because it had actual knowledge of the incident and that any prejudice resulted from its failure to investigate after he spoke with the General Manager.
The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments. It held that although the plaintiff advised the General Manager on March 15, 2022, that he intended to commence legal proceedings, this did not satisfy the requirement to provide written notice. The plaintiff’s literacy difficulties were also found not to constitute a reasonable excuse, particularly because he had consulted a lawyer shortly after the alleged fall and had been advised that he needed to notify the City that he intended to pursue legal action. The reasons do not indicate whether counsel advised the plaintiff that the notice was required to be in writing.
The Court also accepted the City’s evidence that it was prejudiced by the absence of timely notice, as it was unable to promptly investigate the circumstances of the alleged incident and potential witnesses might no longer be available or have a clear recollection. The Plaintiff provided no evidence to the contrary.
Having concluded that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory written notice requirement in s. 181(1), and that none of the exceptions in s. 181(2) applied, the Court held that the action was barred. The Court then converted the motion into one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 37.10(a) of the Rules of Court. It held that the notice issue could be fairly determined on the evidence before it and that there was therefore no genuine issue requiring a trial. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the City and the action was dismissed.
Link: 2026 NBKB 136 (CanLII) | Girard v Campbellton (City) | CanLII
