Tort; remedies; compensatory damages for harm to property; estimate of repair costs.
Facts: The plaintiffs bought a house in 1964 and lived there happily as a family. In 1970 the defendant acquired the neighbouring property and started excavating to build a basement car park for a new building. The excavations caused the ground to subside along the plaintiffs' boundary. It also caused cracking in the plaintiffs' house and a partial ceiling collapse. By April 1971 the plaintiffs' living room split away completely from the rest of the building. In June 1971 the family left the house, fearing it was unsafe to remain. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages.
Issue: What was the appropriate extent to which damages could be claimed?
Decision: The trial court awarded damages calculated as reasonably necessary to restore the house to the condition it had been in before the damage. The defendant appealed, arguing that the proper measure of damages was the extent to which the value of the plaintiffs' house had been diminished (a lesser amount than the cost of restoration). The appeal court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the cost of having their home restored.
Reason: Samuels JA said (at 40):
"The question is whether it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to desire to reinstate their property... It undoubtedly was. They had ... in effect, lost their family home. That is the nature of their damage, and not some diminution in the value of their land...There are cases ... where the nature of the plaintiffs' loss is such that there is only one mode of fairly repairing it. If that turns out to be more expensive than another, the wrongdoer has no one but himself to blame..."