A recent decision has important implications for litigation involving Saskatchewan municipalities.
In Crooks v Rural Municipality of Marquis No. 191, 2024 SKKB 156, the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench dismissed an action brought by a landowner against the Rural Municipality (RM) of Marquis because the plaintiff failed to serve the claim within the one-year limitation period under The Municipalities Act, SS 2005, c M-36.1, and erroneously relied on the defense of promissory estoppel. The takeaway from the Court’s analysis is that parties looking to commence actions against municipalities need to be aware of the special one-year limitation period or risk dismissal.
Case summary
The plaintiff alleged that the RM of Marquis errantly built a road on portions of the plaintiff’s land that had been intended to be developed for lakeside cabins and residences, resulting in in a loss of use and value to the property. The defendant RM asserted that the claim was statute-barred as it was not served within the one-year limitation period. In response, the plaintiff relied on the defense of promissory estoppel and claimed the RM had promised to relocate the road and remediate the land.
The Court identified two fundamental problems with the claim:
- Although the claim was issued within the one-year limitation period, it was not served upon the RM within that one year, as required by s. 344 of The Municipalities Act (para 2).
- The plaintiff failed to establish the criteria for promissory estoppel as a defense against the limitation period (para 15).
The Court affirmed that s.344 of The Municipalities Act requires that a claim against a municipality must not only be issued but also served within one year from when the damages were sustained (para 2).
The Court held that a plaintiff may rely on the equitable defense of promissory estoppel in relation to a missed limitation period, but only if the necessary elements are present, namely:
- That the other party had by words or conduct made a promise which was intended to affect their legal relationship and to be acted on; and
- That they acted on the promise or in some way changed their position (para 10).
The Court determined that alleged statements made by the RM’s representative regarding the relocation of the road were not sufficient to constitute a promise that plaintiff could rely upon, particularly given the conflicting information before the Court.
Key takeaways
The Court noted that, based on the evidence, the plaintiff’s failure to serve the claim in time was a “conscious decision” and, therefore, there was no argument available against applying the limitation period (para 16). Although the plaintiff claimed to have relied upon the RM representative’s “suggestion” of remediation for the delay, the Court held that this was insufficient to establish promissory estoppel.
There are several takeaways for parties looking to commence actions against municipalities:
- Be aware that the special one-year statutory limitation period applies to the service of the claim.
- Note that the Court is entitled to dismiss claims that fail to meet the relevant procedural requirements – particularly where there is evidence the claimant was or should have been aware of those requirements.
- Before raising any equitable defenses such as promissory estoppel, make sure there is sufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of the defense.
For more information on what this ruling could mean for you or your municipality, contact our Municipal team.
Note: This article is of a general nature only and is not exhaustive of all possible legal rights or remedies. In addition, laws may change over time and should be interpreted only in the context of particular circumstances such that these materials are not intended to be relied upon or taken as legal advice or opinion. Readers should consult a legal professional for specific advice in any particular situation.