Municipal litigation involves claims by and against municipalities and other public authorities, including liability for unsafe roads and sidewalks, the strict statutory notice periods that apply, and disputes connected to defective property and the building approval process. The rules differ in important ways from an ordinary negligence claim.
Posts in this category examine how Ontario courts treat municipal liability, notice and the limits on recovery against public bodies, with attention to the deadlines that can defeat an otherwise strong claim.
This material is general information. Notice requirements in particular are short and unforgiving, and specific advice should be obtained promptly.
Does a title insurer have to pay to repair a home, or can it demolish the offending work and pay the lost value instead? In a $1.1M TitlePLUS dispute over unpermitted construction on a Winnipeg home, the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba answered (2025 MBKB 131). The decision is persuasive only in Ontario and is now under appeal.
A purchaser must inspect, but a vendor cannot hide behind “buyer beware” after actively concealing what is wrong with a home. In Austin v MacFarlane, 2026 ONSC 463, a North Bay buyer discovered foundation cracks, hidden mould, and an improperly built deck days after closing, with repairs exceeding $119,000. The Ontario Superior Court explains where vendor silence ends and active concealment begins.
When a homeowner takes on a major renovation, they can step into the legal shoes of a builder, and the duties that come with it cannot be signed away in a standard form contract. In Oliva v Dickson, 2025 ONSC 6666, the court mapped the intersection of contract, the Ontario Building Code, and the duty owed to later purchasers. The decision draws on Breen v Lake of Bays and Wesley v Geneau, two matters in which Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP acted for the successful parties.
In Huether v Sharpe, the Township of McMurrich Monteith argued that negligence claims over a 1980s home build were barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period. The Superior Court disagreed: because the Township never closed the building permit, its duty to monitor the construction was ongoing, so the limitation period did not bar the claim and the summary judgment motion was dismissed. The decision is under appeal.
Since the Court of Appeal decided Bowman v Martineau, the case is often cited for the idea that damages in professional negligence are always measured by diminution in value. In this in-depth commentary, Paul Cahill argues that is a misreading and sets out how damages in these cases should actually be quantified, including when cost of repair, rather than diminution in value, is the right measure.