Yes No Share to Facebook
Azzeh v. Legendre, 2017 ONCA 385: The Lack of Knowledge of Notice Requirement
Question: What qualifies as a "reasonable excuse" for not providing timely injury notice to a municipality in Ontario?
Answer: In Azzeh v. Legendre, 2017 ONCA 385, the court clarified that simply not knowing about the ten-day notice requirement is insufficient as a "reasonable excuse" under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25. Instead, the excuse must be evaluated in context, factoring in circumstances like the ability to sue, having a responsible representative, and the delay's length. For those uncertain how this may impact their case, reviewing this "reasonable excuse" criterion with a legal advisor can be crucial before proceeding. Call (888) 398-0121 for a consultation.
Judicial Analysis: Azzeh v. Legendre
The Azzeh v. Legendre, 2017 ONCA 385, confirms that the "reasonable excuse" exception for failing to provide notice of an injury to a municipality within the ten-day notice requirement stipulated in section 44(10) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, by itself, excludes failure to provide notice due to a lack of knowledge of the notice requirement. On this issue, it was specifically stated:
[43] In determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse, the words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the court should consider all of the circumstances: see Crinson, at paras. 20-23; and Seif, at paras. 26, 47. Those circumstances would include, among other things, whether the plaintiff was capable of forming the intention to sue the municipality within the notice period under s. 44(10), or had a representative whose responsibility it was to retain a lawyer and pursue all claims; the length of the delay before notice was given; and any explanation of the reason for the delay. Lack of awareness of the notice requirement, standing alone, does not constitute a reasonable excuse, but when considered in combination with other extenuating circumstances, a court may conclude a reasonable excuse exists: see Crinson, at para. 38; and Seif, at para. 29 (per Hoy A.C.J.O., partly in dissent but not on this point).
This case underscores that ignorance of the law, meaning lack of awareness of the ten-day notice requirement, fails to qualify as a "reasonable excuse" for failing to provide the ten-day notice of an injury to a municipality. As what constitutes as a "reasonable excuse" requires careful review, a person seeking to bring a claim against a municipality, without having met the ten-day notice requirement, should carefully review the "reasonable excuse" exception prior to commencing the litigation.
