Plaintiff had minor soft tissue injuries, felt persistent discomfort in the short term, ruling says
After an incident involving a partly collapsed ceiling, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruled that a man suffered minor short-term soft tissue injuries that aggravated underlying conditions and persisted over a range of several months at most.
The plaintiff in Munian v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2025 NSSC 98 headed to his sister-in-law’s family home in Inverness County, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia to visit her, his brother, and their children. The Cape Breton Regional Housing Authority managed this residence.
The plaintiff went to the living room, sat on a chair, and started to watch TV. He then felt a sudden impact on the top of his head. He claimed that a large, damp, and heavy piece of gyprock had dropped from the ceiling, hit his head, and forced him to bend forward.
When the plaintiff returned to an upright position, he felt pain in his head, neck, and back. His sister-in-law helped him remove the gyprock and get up to his feet. He drove home shortly afterward. After arriving home, he said that he felt dizzy and began to throw up.
During a visit to the hospital, the medical staff who checked on the plaintiff noted a limited range of motion to his neck, upper back, and shoulders and pre-existing degenerative changes to his lower cervical spine. The hospital kept him overnight and discharged him the next day.
The plaintiff filed an action seeking $30,000 in general damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs. He argued that the defendant was liable as an occupier under Nova Scotia’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1996. Specifically, the defendant allegedly breached its statutory duty and negligently failed to ensure that the plaintiff was reasonably safe while on the premises.
The defendant countered that the collapse of a wet ceiling did not on its own give rise to a presumption of negligence and that the plaintiff failed to offer evidence showing a failure to meet the standard of care.
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia considered the totality of evidence, including evidence from the plaintiff and from the assessing doctor, who had a specialty in physical medicine and rehabilitation and a subspecialty in pain medicine.
Given the evidence, the court concluded that the incident caused the plaintiff to have minor short-term soft tissue injuries and to experience some amount of persistent short-term discomfort and a temporary restriction in his mobility.
The court held that these injuries attributable to the incident only temporarily impacted the plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries and led to no long-term functional limitations, considering that he returned to his job that required bending and lifting within weeks.
The court accepted the doctor’s opinion evidence as credible and reliable in connection with the plaintiff’s injuries and their effects on him. The court added that the defendant failed to challenge, contradict, or refute the doctor’s evidence.
The court deemed the defendant liable to the plaintiff under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. First, the court found a prima facie case of negligence because the plaintiff established on a balance of probabilities that the defendant failed to take reasonable care to make the premises reasonably safe in the circumstances.
The court then concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s breach of its duty to ensure the safety of the ceiling and the premises caused the plaintiff’s injury. The court added that the defendant failed to take reasonable care when it failed to inspect and maintain the premises.
The court noted that, while there were various protocols and procedures aiming to ensure the structural integrity and safety of such premises, this case lacked evidence of site inspection, preventative maintenance, or any effort to check in with the tenant.
The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $15,000 in general damages, given the circumstances in this case and the guiding case law. The court also awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest at an annual rate of 2.5 percent for 74 months.
The court excluded from its calculation 26 months, which represented the time between the completion of the discoveries and the last order directing compliance with the undertakings, minus a 60-day period under the rules. This exclusion was due to the plaintiff’s delay in bringing this matter to trial, the court explained.
