Can a city be held liable for failing to enforce its own building bylaw?

In Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2, the court held that any private law duty of care owed by public authorities toward individuals depends on the authority’s statutory powers. In that case, the city was held liable for losses incurred when it failed to enforce the provisions of its building bylaw. The court found that the purpose of the bylaw was to prevent defective construction, through its scheme of building inspection. The plaintiff succeeded in his negligence claim against the city when the basement of the home he purchased, which had been previously inspected by the city, subsided.

Cory J. in Swinamer v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) 1994 CanLII 122 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 445 (S.C.C.) observed that as a general rule, governments will have the same duty of care under tort law as individuals do. This conclusion signalled a shift away from the traditional view that public authorities did not owe a duty of care to individuals unless there was some underlying statutory basis for liability.