Farm bridge collapses beneath sprayer - who is at fault?

AS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN THE RURAL VOICE:

In 2017, a custom sprayer operator from a local farm supply company was crossing a private bridge on a farm with a self-propelled sprayer when the bridge broke.  The sprayer fell into the river that ran beneath the bridge.  The operator was trapped underwater but managed to escape his machine.  The sprayer sustained very significant damage.  Over the course of 11 days in 2023 and 2024, a trial was held in the Superior Court of Justice to determine who was at fault for the incident and what compensation might be owing for damage to the sprayer.  A decision was rendered at the end of March this year.

The sprayer involved in the case weighed over 15 tons when empty and had 100-foot booms.  It had been purchased in 2014 for just under $343,000.  The operator of the sprayer was a long-time employee of the farm supply company and had operated the sprayer (and only that sprayer) for four years.  He had finished spraying one field on the customer’s farm and was moving to another field across the bridge when the collapse occurred.  The sprayer was about two-thirds of the way across when wooden planking broke beneath the sprayer’s front right tire.  The sprayer rolled completely and landed upright in the deep river below.  The cab was submerged and quickly filled with water, but the operator found a way out.  He escaped with cuts to his hands from broken glass.

The farm bridge had originally been constructed in the early 1900s by the same family that owns and operates the farm today.  In 1980, the bridge was rebuilt with concrete abutments placed at each end of the bridge.  The river was spanned using five steel beams spaced to create a supporting structure 10-feet-wide.  A wooden deck was placed over the beams with wooden planks running parallel with the beams on each side of the deck to hold the deck together.  In all, the wood deck stretched 57 feet from one side of the river to the other.  The deck extended in an overhang of approximately 3 feet beyond the edge of the steel beams on each side of the bridge.

No building permit was required for the bridge; the only legal requirement for the private bridge was that it be high enough above the river to allow water to pass under the bridge if the river flooded.  The unchallenged evidence of the farm family was that the bridge was crossed between 40 and 50 times a day by large-sized farm equipment weighing from 15 to 40 tons. 

After the bridge collapse, the sprayer sat mostly submerged in the river for 10 hours.  It was extricated from the water and taken back to the equipment retailer for an assessment of the damage to the machine and an estimate of the cost of repair.  A consultant engaged by the insurer for the farm supply company didn’t believe the sprayer was a write-off; he thought the unit could be repaired for roughly $332,000 including taxes.  The cost of a new replacement sprayer was over $435,000.  The insurer gave the farm supplier the following options: 1) repair the sprayer; 2) purchase a replacement sprayer of similar value to the damaged sprayer; or, 3) take the estimated cost of the repairs and apply it to the purchase of a new sprayer.  The farm supply company chose the third option and purchased a new sprayer.

Having paid out the estimated cost of repairing the damaged sprayer, the insurer for the farm supply company had a right of subrogation meaning that it could now pursue a claim to recover the money it had paid out.  The insurer sued the farm corporation that owned the bridge, claiming that the farm was at fault for the collapse because: the overhang was unsupported; the bridge was in a state of disrepair including rot; the wooden deck was free to shift over the steel beams; and, there was no warning that the overhang of the wooden deck was unsupported.  The farm corporation defended the action arguing that the incident was caused by driver error.  Provided that a vehicle was kept centered over the steel beams, the farm corporation contended that the bridge could support equipment much heavier than the sprayer had been at the moment of the collapse. 

The Court sided with the farm corporation and ruled that driver error was the cause of the incident and of any losses suffered by the farm supply company.  Although there was evidence of some rot in the wooden deck of the bridge, the bridge did not break at the point of the rotted wood.  Instead, the bridge broke only where the sprayer tire reached a point two-thirds across the overhang.  If the tires had been centered on the beams, the bridge would not have collapsed whether the wood on the overhang was rotten or brand new.  The Court found that the likely explanation for the sprayer veering toward the edge of the bridge was driver inadvertence.  A warning to keep the machine in the centre of the bridge and off the overhang wouldn’t have helped: the sprayer operator already knew he needed to keep the vehicle centred when crossing the bridge.  The insurer’s subrogated action for damages was dismissed.

Read the decision at:  2025 ONSC 1996 (CanLII).

 

Dump Trucks are not Ubers

AS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN THE RURAL VOICE:

A case decided in the Ontario Court of Justice in 2024 holds some valuable lessons for landowners and commercial trucking operators.  The decision resulted in convictions for a trucking company under the Environmental Protection Act – that was the quasi-criminal part of the story.  In the background, it is likely that the circumstances of the case will also give rise to civil claims against some of the parties involved.  The landowner is now confronted with huge potential costs.

Back in 2020 or so, the owner of a 36-acre rural property obtained a permit to fill in a low-lying area of his property to expand the workable land for agricultural purposes.  It’s not clear what initiated this, but the common-law partner of the owner was approached by the principal of a landscaping company offering to source fill to be used on the property.  The “soil broker” proposed a formal agreement to the landowner.  The landowner didn’t sign the agreement initially, wanting to wait to see what material was delivered to his property.  The landowner viewed the first few dump truck loads that came in and the fill appeared to be clean fill – exactly what he wanted.  That was on October 30, 2020.

The landowner was away on business on November 5 and 6 when more trucks arranged by the soil broker came to the property.  On November 6, the owner’s partner called him in a panic to explain that personnel from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) had attended at the property and told her that the material that was being delivered was not appropriate for the site.  The owner arrived back at the property late at night on November 6.  He went out to the fill area with a flashlight and could see that the material deposited contained rubber, tires, building debris, pink plastic from insulation, shoes, wood, metal and various pieces of garbage.

The evidence before the Court showed that some of the fill brought to the site was clean but much of the fill was waste from a particular property where there had been a historic unapproved landfill and where old industrial waste was mixed with the soil.  That source property could not be developed by its owner until the waste was eliminated.  Apparently, the soil broker was going to help that owner solve its problem with the historic waste by moving the waste to the 36-acre property and using it to fill in the low-lying area.  In all, 199 truckloads of material were brought to the landowner’s property through trucking arranged by the soil broker.  The landowner testified that, as of the date of the hearing before the Court, 167 loads-worth of waste-containing material probably remains.  He’s afraid he’ll go bankrupt if he has to haul the material away to a proper waste-disposal site.

The hearing before the Ontario Court of Justice was a trial on charges laid against the soil broker and the trucking company that had delivered the waste material to the landowner’s property.  Both parties were charged under the Environmental Protection Act with depositing waste on land that is not a waste disposal site and with operating a waste management system (which would include transporting waste) or waste disposal site without authorization under the Act.  The soil broker did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an ex parte basis against him.  He was convicted on both charges in respect of the November 5 and 6 delivery dates. 

The trucking company that delivered the waste to the landowner’s property did attend the trial and contested the charges.  The trucking company argued that other trucking companies were involved, that the MECP could have done more to stop the dumping, that the landowner should have been charged, etc.  One final argument made by the trucking company was that “the dump truck industry operates like Uber, renting out trucks and drivers to customers and that the responsibility of the trucking company is limited only to providing the trucks and drivers and has nothing to do with what is being hauled.”

The Justice of the Peace conducting the trial rejected all of the trucking company’s arguments as to why it should not be convicted.  She explained:

Dump trucks are not Ubers. There is a legal and regulatory framework that applies to dump trucks that choose to transport and dump waste. A dump truck company is expected to know what these legal requirements are and to ensure that they obtain the appropriate authorizations if they engage in this activity. If they do not, they should be taking steps to ensure they do not transport waste. This is their obligation under the law. Full stop. They cannot simply excuse themselves from legal and regulatory requirements by ignoring them. They bear the legal risk if they choose to do so.

The lesson for trucking companies is clear – ignorance of what is being hauled is no defence to a charge for transporting waste without proper authorization.  The lesson for landowners might be to refuse the importation of any fill to a property without personally ensuring that the fill is appropriate and can legally be deposited.  There will no doubt be a cost to achieving that level of assurance.  However, the cost of having your property turned into an illegal waste dump will be far higher.

Resulting Trusts Part 2: Joint Tenancy and Estate Planning

AS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED IN THE RURAL VOICE:

Last month’s article explored the legal concepts of resulting trusts and beneficial ownership of land.  There is a presumption that a “resulting trust” arises when property is held in the name of a party who provided no value for it.  The “legal owner” in whose name the property is held is considered to hold the property in trust for the true “beneficial owner” who actually did provide the value by which the property was acquired.  Prime examples of circumstances giving rise to resulting trusts are where a parent provides the purchase money for a property held in the name of an adult child or where the parent adds the child to title for no consideration.  The presumption of a resulting trust is rebuttable.  The child could demonstrate, for instance, that the transfer of the property interest was intended as an outright gift by the parent.

This month’s article is Part 2, because it just so happens that the Ontario Court of Appeal decided a case last December dealing with questions of beneficial ownership and resulting trusts in the context of estate planning that is worthy of attention.  In his reasons for the initial application decision that led to the appeal heard in the Court of Appeal, Justice Charney of the Superior Court of Justice had noted that the case was “a cautionary tale for persons who might be tempted to use joint tenancy as an estate planning mechanism to avoid the payment of probate fees.”

The case involved the residence of a Mr. J. that he had purchased in 2011 using the proceeds from the sale of another property that he had previously owned jointly with his former partner, Mr. T.  Mr. J. and Mr. T. had owned the other property as “joint tenants”, meaning that if one owner died, the other would receive the deceased owner’s interest by right of survivorship without the property interest entering the deceased owner’s estate and without requiring the payment of estate taxes or “probate fees”.  Mr. T. passed away and Mr. J. became the sole owner of the property by right of survivorship.  Mr. J. sold that property and used the proceeds to buy his new residence.

Mr. J. and Mr. T. had also made mirror wills in which they both named the other as sole beneficiary of their respective estates and named Mr. T.’s great-niece, Ms. R., as their alternate beneficiary.  Although the will didn’t apply to the property that was sold by Mr. J. (because Mr. J. and Mr. T. had owned the property as joint tenants), it was a relevant part of the factual background to the court case.  The year after he purchased his new residence, Mr. J. added Ms. R. to the title to his new residential property as a joint tenant.  Ms. R. didn’t live in the residence, but she would become the sole owner of the residence if Mr. J. predeceased her (similar to the way in which Ms. R. had been named as alternate beneficiary in the mirror wills made by Mr. T. and Mr. J.) and no probate fees would be payable.

Unfortunately, the relationship between Mr. J. and Ms. R broke down.  Based on a conversation with Ms. R.’s husband, Mr. J. came to believe that Ms. R had plans to sell Mr. J.’s residence and to buy another property where she and her husband and Mr. J. could live together.  In response, Mr. J. instructed his lawyer to “sever” the joint tenancy.  A transfer was registered by which Mr. J. conveyed his interest in the property to himself, with the result that he and Ms. R. were now co-owners of the property as “tenants in common” and not joint tenants.  Mr. J. and Ms. R. then each held separate 50% interests in the property. 

Justice Charney in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal on appeal were tasked with determining whether Mr. J. had the right to sever the joint tenancy and what ownership situation currently exists.  Justice Charney found that Mr. J.’s transfer of an interest in his residence to Ms. R. involved a gift only of the right of survivorship.  Otherwise, Ms. R. held her interest in the property in trust for Mr. J. by way of resulting trust.  Justice Charney also found that Mr. J. was entitled to sever the joint tenancy.  The Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Charney’s decision on these points. 

However, the Court of Appeal did not agree with Justice Charney’s depiction of the resulting ownership situation.  Justice Charney’s opinion was that the right of survivorship that Mr. J. had gifted to Ms. R. still remained in effect as to a 50% interest in the property.  Mr. J. held a 50% interest as tenant in common in the property free and clear of any right of survivorship for Ms. R.  Ms. R. held a 50% interest as tenant in common in trust for Mr. J., but with a right of survivorship so that she would take over full legal and beneficial ownership of that 50% interest when Mr. J. died (if he still owned the property by then).  The Court of Appeal found instead that any right of survivorship disappeared when the joint tenancy was severed.  It could not continue to attach to the 50% interest that was held in the name of Ms. R.  By severing the joint tenancy, Mr. J. had effectively revoked the entirety of his gift of a right of survivorship, something that he was entitled to do while he was still alive.

Read the decision at:  2024 ONCA 875