What is the state of the law on municipal liability for nuisance claims?

Mr. Justice Goepel said the following in British Columbia v. Vancouver (City), supra: 22 In this case, the legislative history makes clear that the legislative amendment was to (sic) attempting to remedy was municipal liability for nuisance claims. In providing that remedy the legislature did not provide local governments with blanket immunity from all nuisance claims. They chose instead to limit that immunity to claims that arose directly or indirectly form the breakdown or malfunction of certain named systems. … 24 The purpose of a sewer system is to take sewage from point A” to point “B”. In this case, because of an unknown obstruction, the sewer system failed to take sewage form point “A” to point “B”. The obstruction prevented the system from fulfilling its purpose in a normal or satisfactory manner, which by definition constitutes a malfunction…. 25 I find that the damages giving rise to this action arose directly or indirectly out of a malfunction of the sewer system. Section 294(9) of the Charter provides a complete defence to the claim. The Province’s claim is dismissed.