Azzeh v. Legendre, 2017 ONCA 385: The Lack of Knowledge of Notice Requirement | Olson Craig Legal
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Azzeh v. Legendre, 2017 ONCA 385: The Lack of Knowledge of Notice Requirement


Question: What does the Azzeh v. Legendre case reveal about the "reasonable excuse" for failing to notify a municipality of an injury?

Answer: The Ontario Court of Appeal determined that ignorance of the ten-day notice requirement under the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 is not a valid "reasonable excuse." For those wanting to pursue a claim against a municipality, understanding the nuances of such legal requirements is crucial. Ensure your rights are protected—consider seeking guidance today.


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.

Get a FREE ¼ HOUR CONSULTATION

Need Help?Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
3

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: Olson Craig Legal

NOTE: Do not send confidential details about your case.  Using this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Use the website for your introduction with Olson Craig Legal. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.9




Sign
Up

Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A
Ernie, the AI Bot