Article content
The owner of the building in Old Montreal where seven people were killed in a fire last year won’t be able to use all the arguments he wants in a $7.6 million lawsuit he filed against the city of Montreal.
In a decision delivered last week, Superior Court Justice Shaun Finn partially denied Émile Benamor being able to institute “proceedings as to the damages sought in connection with the preventive measures taken” by the Montreal fire department before someone set fire to the building.
Article content
On March 16, 2023, an accelerant was used inside the building on Place D’Youville to start a fire that killed seven people and injured nine others. The blaze also destroyed the building.
Last summer, the Montreal police said they are convinced the fire was deliberately set, but to date no one has been charged with what happened.
Benamor filed the lawsuit shortly after the Montreal police made the announcement. He is seeking $7 million for the construction costs of the building, $175,000 for loss of rental income and $100,000 for “defamation emanating from city officials” for comments made alleging, among other things, that Benamor allowed several apartments inside the building to be used as illegal short-term rental units.
“Several of the statements reported by the city’s employees, representatives or agents were false, inaccurate and aimed to hold the plaintiff responsible for the events, including the injuries and deaths that resulted from them,” the lawsuit states.
It alleges that, because the building was considered a heritage property, city regulations made it impossible for Benamor, who purchased the property in 2010, to carry out modifications, including an emergency stairwell leading to the roof and allowing people access to the building next door. The stairwell was ordered dismantled.
Article content
The suit also alleges firefighters did not deploy adequate resources to the fire and dismissed Benamor when he told them minutes after the fire started that there were very likely people inside the building.
Finn heard arguments on how the lawsuit should proceed on March 26. The city argued Benamor also could not institute proceedings because he failed to file a claim with the city within 15 days of the fire as required by the municipality’s rules.
The debate involves a complex definition of whether the fire can be considered an “accident” as it applies to filing for damages with the city.
“Here, Mr. Benamor is not alleging a breach of a legal obligation. It is the insufficiency and poor deployment of the human and material resources of the Montreal fire department that he denounces, rather than the non-existence of these resources,” the judge wrote.
“That being said, he nevertheless alleges wrongful actions taken by the Montreal fire department in fighting the fire of March 16, 2023. According to the court, these wrongful actions — which occur in the heat of the action — have nothing to do with an accident. On the contrary, they arise at the place and time when the damaging event occurs. We cannot therefore qualify them as involuntary or unforeseen without distorting the ordinary acceptance of the word ‘accident.’
“The court concludes that the claim for damages in connection with the intervention of the Montreal fire department on March 16, 2023 did not require the transmission of a notice (within 15 days).”
Recommended from Editorial
Share this article in your social network