By Ahmad Hathout
The Superior Court of Quebec ruled Monday that the City of Sherbrooke is not liable for the cost of a fire that damaged Bell facilities in August 2021.
An unidentified homeless person started the fire under the Montcalm Street Bridge that spread to Bell’s fiberglass conduits suspended under the structure that caused damages worth more than $1.3 million.
Bell argued that the city was liable because it failed to take the necessary measures to avoid the incident, such as preventing people from using the underpass for shelter, and should have fenced off the area or at least put in place surveillance systems. The telco noted that homeless people have been using the bridge for activities that contravene city bylaws and the government had been warned about these activities for months before the fire.
The telco stood to gain $950,000 from a verdict in its favour.
But the court rejected the case on the basis that the city was not negligent both in how it managed the homeless population and how responders intervened to manage the situation under the bridge.
The court noted that, contrary to cited case law that showed instances where municipalities were liable for damages, the City of Sherbrooke and its emergency responders were not negligent in this case.
City police responded to previous incidents under the bridge and, in fact, responded to the previous fire, which was six months earlier. The court, which noted the responding officer acted within the bounds of his discretion, said there was no reason to believe that the presence of campfires remained an issue to be monitored.
As for the installation of a fence to block entry under the bridge, city officials testified that barriers have not proven to be effective in part because people have found ways around or through them, including by cutting them down with power tools, when maintenance work had to be done to the structure. The court said Bell had not proven that such a barrier would have prevented the damage caused by the fire or that surveillance cameras would have been effective in this case.
Bell also argued that the city should have notified it that people were using the underpass of the bridge to set up campfires. But the court said Bell did not demonstrate that the city or its emergency responders were aware that its conduits were located under the bridge; did not install a metal guard around the ducts on the east side of the bridge as it had done on the west side; and even after the fire, did not take action to protect the ductwork.
In a statement to Cartt, a Bell spokesperson said the telco “has received the judgment issued in this matter and is currently reviewing it.”
Screenshot via Google Maps
