In a decision rendered on April 11, 2025, the Court of Appeal ruled on the issue of relative immunity for a municipal fire department’s actions in the case of Leduc v. Durham-Sud Municipality.
During the night of March 17 to 18, 2019, a duplex owned by the plaintiffs in the Municipality of Durham-Sud (“Municipality”) was destroyed by a violent fire. The plaintiffs alleged negligence on the part of the Municipality and its fire department, claiming that they failed to implement proper firefighting measures in a timely manner and that they unjustly ordered the demolition of the remaining part of the structure, which the plaintiffs argued was still intact.
Trial Court Decision
The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. It found the defendants’ testimony credible and concluded that the fire department benefited from a relative immunity under the Fire Safety Act. The Municipality had a fire safety cover plan in place and properly implemented its provisions. There was no gross negligence or willful misconduct that would override this immunity. In fact, the firefighters’ actions were described as prudent, diligent, professional, serious and considerate.
Court of Appeal Decision
The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the firefighters’ alleged fault. However, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, finding no such errors in the trial court’s analysis.
Relative Immunity
The Court confirmed that a municipality is not liable for the actions of its fire department as long as:
- It has implemented a fire safety cover plan.
- It has taken the prescribed measures outlined in the fire safety cover plan.
In this case, the regional county municipality had a fire safety cover plan that specified two main measures:
- Initial response force
- Sufficient water supply
The plaintiffs claimed that only seven firefighters responded, while the fire safety cover plan required eleven within 20 minutes. However, the evidence showed that seventeen firefighters arrived within that time frame, despite the emergency call being placed at 3:30 a.m.
Regarding water supply, the plaintiffs argued that firefighters failed to use the hydrant in front of the duplex and instead relied on a swimming pool and tanker trucks, which delayed the response and limited water pressure to 75%. However, the court found that the hydrant was non-compliant, delivering less than the required 1,500 L/min. The fire safety cover plan allowed for alternative solutions in such cases, and using the pool and tankers met those requirements.
Thus, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s finding that the Municipality had properly implemented its fire safety cover plan and retained a relative immunity.
Gross Negligence
Even with immunity, a municipality can be held liable for gross negligence. The plaintiffs alleged two additional faults:
- The firefighters paused water operations for about 15 minutes to allow the plaintiffs to retrieve personal items.
- The firefighters demolished the rest of the building, which plaintiffs claimed was structurally sound and undamaged by fire.
However, the trial judge had ruled that even if true, these actions did not amount to gross negligence. The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the trial judge relied on the credible, consistent testimony of the defendants and found the plaintiffs’ claims to be emotional and exaggerated.
The Court emphasized that it does not reassess evidence but instead ensures that no overriding errors were made in the initial judgement. Finding none, it concluded that there was no gross negligence in this case.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court’s decision: the Municipality and its fire department were not liable, thanks to their relative immunity, and no gross negligence was proven.
