Facts

This was a ten-year litigation case between a Canadian municipality (the city) and the owners of a private building near the city hall (the building owners). Third parties included architects who designed the city hall and engineers responsible for the building's roofing system and for hiring contractors for repairs.

In December 2004, a storm passed through the city and allegedly blew loose rocks from the private building's roof onto city hall, breaking its glass pyramids. A year and a half later, the city advised the building owners to take immediate action to avoid similar incidents in the future. In October 2008, another violent storm resulted in severe damage to over one hundred panels of the glass pyramids. Ten months later, approximately ten additional panels were broken in another storm.

After the third round of damage, the city hired an expert to investigate and then file a lawsuit against the building owners. The city accused the building owners of nuisance: they allowed the rocks to accumulate on their roof; and negligence: they had a duty of care to design, inspect, repair, or replace their roof. The city sought an injunction requiring the building owners to repair or replace their roof to prevent rocks from blowing off and damages of roughly $1 million. They proposed a trial that would last less than twenty-five days. The building owners denied all of the accusations and described the city's allegations as “embarrassing and vexatious.” In particular, they denied responsibility for the damage to the city hall's glass pyramids’ panels, citing the negligible size of the falling rocks. The building owners also asserted that they had taken all reasonable precautions to maintain their roofing system. Furthermore, they charged that the city was negligent for constructing a building with high-risk glass panels, and that the damage was the result of defective glass and improper installation. Regardless of the role that rocks on the roof might have played, the building owners also claimed that weather conditions were an act of God and therefore, the city had no right to file a damage claim. Finally, the building owners asked the city to repair or replace their roofing system if an injunction were granted.