The B.C. Supreme Court has agreed to certify a class action lawsuit brought by one of the survivors of a deadly fire at a Prince George motel in 2020.
The court's certification of the class action does not mean that the defendants – the motel's owner and franchisor, the city and two fire inspection businesses – were negligent or that the lawsuit will ultimately succeed.
Rather, it means that Justice Marguerite H. Church found that the lawsuit brought by Leonard Hay satisfies the requirements of B.C.'s Class Proceedings Act.
THE FIRE
Hay suffered severe burns in the fire at Econo Lodge Prince George on July 8, 2020, according to Church's decision.
He was staying in room 243 on the second floor on the southeast side of the motel, which was where the fire caused the most damage.
According to the decision, Hay heard screams from the room next door. He went to the window and saw flames outside his room.
"The window of the room then exploded, throwing him backwards," Church wrote in her decision.
"Mr. Hay ran to the bathroom at the rear of the room, put a wet towel over his head and then exited the room. When he opened the door, he burned his hand on the door handle and then ran through the flames and smoke. He was unable to make his way down the walkway or stairway due to the thick smoke and flames. When his clothing caught fire, he threw himself over the balcony to the courtyard below. He did not hear any fire alarms or see motel staff assisting people to evacuate the motel."
The fire broke out around 8:40 a.m., according to the decision. Prince George fire crews responded to the motel on Victoria Street near Ninth Avenue and put out the flames.
Three bodies were found inside the building around 12:30 p.m., and police soon determined the fire had been intentionally set.
"Evidence of gasoline was found in several areas near the southeast stairway," the court decision reads.
"The B.C. Prosecution Service has approved charges, including arson in relation to inhabited property, against one individual."
The decision does not name the accused.
THE CLASS
Hay's lawsuit proposes a class of people with common issues arising from the fire and the alleged negligence of the defendants he claims contributed to it.
"The plaintiff asserts that the arson which damaged the motel was only possible due to the negligence of the defendants, including inadequate security, lack of control of third parties on the premises, and unsafe conditions at the motel," Church wrote in the decision.
"The plaintiff also asserts that the defendants’ acts or omissions led to a lack of response from any fire alarm, fire suppression system, or fire safety plan. The plaintiff submits that the ability of the Fire to spread quickly and cause damage was exacerbated due to unsafe operations, and inadequate fire safety or warning systems. In consequence, the impact of the Fire on proposed class members was supposedly greater than it should have been."
The lawsuit defines the proposed class as all registered guests of the motel and everyone who was present at the motel and its adjoining restaurant at the time of the fire, plus the personal representatives and dependents of the people who died in the blaze.
Expressly excluded from the class, however, are anyone employed by or acting on behalf of the defendants, as well as "any person who intentionally started the fire or conspired to start the fire."
THE DECISION
The defendants argued that the definition of the proposed class was "overly broad" and could include people who have no interest in the common issues, according to Church's decision.
They also argued that the definition was "insufficiently objective," that individual issues faced by individual class members would predominate over the common issues, and that many of the common issues asserted are "non-substantive."
Church rejected each of these arguments, finding that "the plaintiff has established that the pleadings disclose a cause of action, there is an objectively identifiable class, the claims of the class members raise common issues, a class proceeding is the preferable procedure, and that he is a suitable representative plaintiff."
She rejected Hay's claim for the defendants to pay his court costs, however, noting that the defendants were within their rights to oppose the certification of the class action and had not advanced "vexatious," frivolous or abusive arguments.
"In the circumstances of this proceeding, the defendants’ opposition to the certification application was based on genuine issues arising from the requirements imposed by the certification test," Church wrote. "The mere fact that the defendants have been unsuccessful in their opposition to certification does not mean that they did not have a viable legal basis for their opposition."
Post a Comment