1075459 B.C. Ltd. v. Prince George: Strict Liability Gas Explosion Claim Proceeds

• A British Columbia court allowed a strict liability claim under Rylands v. Fletcher to proceed to trial following a 2023 gas explosion in Prince George.
• The court deferred deciding on the limitation period and the 'non-natural use' of land, allowing these complex issues to be fully argued at trial.
• Plaintiffs successfully argued that the discoverability principle extended their limitation period, as critical information from an RCMP investigation was not available until mid-2025.
• The ruling in 1075459 B.C. Ltd. v. Prince George (City), 2026 BCSC 1643, clarifies that strict liability claims can advance even with live disputes over key legal elements.
• Justice Tindale emphasized that the 'non-natural use' test focuses on whether the use is inappropriate for the location, not merely the hazardousness of the substance.

The court found that the proposed amendments to the pleadings contained sufficient factual allegations to proceed past the initial stage, deferring the complex determination of 'non-natural use' for a full trial.

A significant legal dispute has emerged in British Columbia following a natural gas explosion that devastated a vacant building in Prince George and forced the closure of a nearby nightclub. The incident, which occurred on August 22, 2023, at 422 Dominion Street, involved intruders breaking a pressurized natural gas pipe inside a structure owned by Commonwealth Campus Corporation. The subsequent ignition of the gas around 7 a.m. not only destroyed the building but also caused damage to adjacent premises leased by Encore Promotions Inc., a nightclub operator whose operations ceased during repairs.

Commonwealth Campus Corporation had engaged Paladin Security Group Ltd. to secure the property. However, plaintiffs later alleged that the building's alarm system had been inactive for several weeks prior to the explosion. This critical detail, they contended, remained unknown to them until July 16, 2025, when they received the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) investigation file. The disclosure of RCMP materials in mid-2025 provided new information regarding responsibility for the blast, prompting the plaintiffs to seek amendments to their pleadings and introduce a new defendant in the case, 1075459 B.C. Ltd. v. Prince George (City), 2026 BCSC 1643.

Central to the legal proceedings was a strict liability claim brought under the established Rylands v. Fletcher rule BC, which imposes liability without the need to prove negligence. Commonwealth argued that this claim was filed beyond the two-year limitation period stipulated by section 6 of British Columbia's Limitation Act. However, the plaintiffs countered by invoking the discoverability provisions under section 8 of the same Act. They asserted that their claim was not 'discovered' until they knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that an injury had occurred, that it was caused by an identifiable party, and that litigation was the appropriate course of action.

According to the plaintiffs, all four elements of discoverability were only satisfied after the RCMP file confirmed that Commonwealth had maintained gas supply to the building, that Paladin had been hired for security, and crucially, that the alarm system had not been set. Justice Tindale of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in the 1075459 B.C. Ltd. v. Prince George strict liability case, opted not to summarily resolve the limitation issue. Citing the precedent set in Eastern Platinum Limited v. Cameron, 2020 BCSC 1353, the court allowed the requested amendment to the pleadings, reserving Commonwealth's right to raise the limitation defence at trial.

Another significant point of contention revolved around whether supplying natural gas to a building constitutes a 'natural use' of land, which, if affirmed, would preclude a strict liability claim. Commonwealth contended that such a use was natural, thereby attempting to negate a key element of the Rylands v. Fletcher rule. Justice Tindale, however, rejected this argument, drawing upon the analysis from the Ontario Court of Appeal in Smith v. Inco Ltd., 2011 ONCA 628. This precedent clarified that the relevant test for 'non-natural use' is not the inherent hazardousness of the substance itself, but rather whether the use is inappropriate for the specific location.

This principle, often referred to as the 'pig-in-the-parlour' standard from Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, [1989] 2 SCR 1181, focuses on the context of the activity. The court found that the proposed amendments to the pleadings contained sufficient factual allegations to proceed past the initial stage, deferring the complex determination of 'non-natural use' for a full trial. This decision underscores that a strict liability gas explosion claim can advance even when the 'non-natural use of land test' remains a live issue.

The ruling in 1075459 B.C. Ltd. v. Prince George (City), 2026 BCSC 1643, provides important clarity for strict liability claims in British Columbia. It affirms that such claims, particularly those involving the Rylands v. Fletcher rule BC, can proceed to trial even when there are unresolved disputes concerning limitation periods and the 'non-natural use' of land. The court's decision to defer these complex issues for a full hearing highlights a judicial willingness to allow claims to be fully litigated, rather than dismissing them at an early stage based on preliminary arguments.

This outcome reinforces the principle that a plaintiff in a strict liability case is not required to prove negligence, but merely that the defendant engaged in a non-natural use of land, brought something onto the land likely to cause mischief if it escaped, and that it did escape and caused damage. The application of the limitation period discoverability BC principle further demonstrates how the timing for initiating legal action can be extended, particularly when crucial information, such as an RCMP investigation file, is not immediately available to the claimants. This case serves as a reminder that courts may reserve intricate legal questions for trial, impacting how such claims are pleaded and defended in the province.

This ruling clarifies that strict liability claims under Rylands v. Fletcher can proceed to trial in British Columbia, even with live disputes over limitation periods and the 'non-natural use' of land. Lawyers should be aware that courts may defer complex issues for trial and that the discoverability principle can extend limitation periods, impacting how such claims are pleaded and defended in BC.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer