Vacant Buildings and Strict Liability: BC Court Allows Rylands v. Fletcher Claim to Proceed After Gas Explosion

Why the Ruling Matters to Owners of Empty Buildings

The Court accepted that keeping an active pressurized gas service connected to a long-vacant building can be pleaded as a use inappropriate to the place. The proposed strict liability claim targets the owner’s decision to maintain that service, and does not require the plaintiffs to establish negligence arising from the intrusion.

Strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher does not require proof of negligence. For the owner of an unoccupied building, that difference can materially change how a claim is run. The analysis moves away from the adequacy of the security arrangements and onto the character of what the owner chose to keep running on the land.

The significance of the decision emerges from the Court’s treatment of Commonwealth’s principal argument. Commonwealth Campus Corporation argued that supplying natural gas to a furnace describes an ordinary use of a building. Mr. Justice Tindale disagreed for the purposes of the application, holding that the proposed amendments provide sufficient material facts of a user inappropriate to the building. The reasons do not spell out which of the pleaded facts carried that conclusion.

On the pleaded facts, the relevant circumstances include the building’s long vacancy, the continued pressurized gas supply and the potential for unauthorized access. The proposed pleading relies on those matters collectively, and does not treat the presence of a gas furnace as determinative. An owner can assess and manage several of them while a building stands empty.

The Facts Behind the Dominion Street Explosion

The plaintiffs own and operate a nightclub across an alley from a vacant former restaurant destroyed by a natural gas explosion on August 22, 2023. More than two years into the proceeding, the plaintiffs applied to amend the claim and to change the parties.

1075459 B.C. Ltd. owns land at 1192 5th Avenue in Prince George. Encore Promotions Inc. leases that land and operates a nightclub on the premises, directly across an alley from 422 Dominion Street. Commonwealth Campus Corporation owns the building at that second address. The building had been used as a restaurant, and had stood vacant for several years before the explosion.

Between August 21 and August 22, 2023, unauthorized persons gained access to the interior of the building and broke a gas pipe. Natural gas accumulated inside and caused the explosion. The blast damaged the plaintiffs’ premises and forced the nightclub to cease operations while repairs were awaited. Commonwealth had hired Paladin Security Group Ltd. to provide security for the building at the time.

The plaintiffs filed their Notice of Civil Claim on January 17, 2024, and filed an Amended Notice of Civil Claim on September 5, 2024. On May 9, 2025 the plaintiffs discontinued against Four Star Communications Inc. and the City of Prince George. The amendment application followed on March 24, 2026, and was heard on April 27, 2026.

Trevor Sakamoto, an officer and director of the plaintiffs, deposed that counsel received the complete RCMP investigation file on July 16, 2025. On the plaintiffs’ account, that file first disclosed three matters. Commonwealth had kept the building supplied with gas, Paladin had been retained to provide security, and the alarm system had not been activated.

The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher and the Statutory Deadline

Two frameworks govern the application. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher imposes liability without proof of fault where an escape results from a non-natural use of land. The Limitation Act sets a basic period of two years from discovery.

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330 imposes strict liability for an escape from land. One element is the condition of non-natural use, a point the plaintiffs acknowledged by reference to J.P. Porter Co. Ltd. v. Bell et al, 1954 CanLII 303. The plaintiffs also acknowledged that the resulting liability is distinct from nuisance and from negligence. In this proceeding, pleading the rule introduced a new cause of action.

The Court took the modern content of the non-natural use element from the Ontario Court of Appeal in Smith v. Inco Ltd., 2011 ONCA 628. That judgment discussed the reasoning of La Forest J. in Tock v. St. John’s Metropolitan Area Board. On that approach the touchstone is damage occurring from a user inappropriate to the place where the thing is maintained. The element carries a flexibility that allows the rule to adjust to changing patterns in society, reflected in the levels of government regulation controlling how and where activities are conducted.

Section 6 of the Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 13 sets the basic limitation period at two years. Section 8 sets the general discovery rule, under which a claim is discovered on the first day the claimant knew or reasonably ought to have known each of four matters.

• That injury, loss or damage had occurred.
• That the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission.
• That the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is or may be made.
• That, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a court proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage.

On the amendment question the Court applied Eastern Platinum Limited v. Cameron, 2020 BCSC 1353, where Mr. Justice Taylor summarized the approach. The first question asks if the proposed amendments raise a new cause of action. Where a new cause of action is raised and the applicable limitation period may have expired, the court considers if allowing the amendment is just and convenient, assuming that expiry.

What Justice Tindale Held, Order by Order

Mr. Justice Tindale granted leave to add Paladin Security Group Ltd. as a defendant. Leave to amend the claim to plead Rylands v. Fletcher was also granted, without prejudice to Commonwealth raising a limitation defence at trial. The application raised several procedural issues. The reasons address each separately, and the resulting orders are clearer when read together.

On the addition of Paladin, neither Commonwealth nor Paladin took a position. The Court nonetheless made a finding, holding that the evidence on the application establishes a factual basis to proceed against Paladin in negligence. That finding governs the pleading, and leaves the merits of the negligence claim undecided.

The plaintiffs also applied to remove the City of Prince George from the style of cause, and that application was dismissed. The Third Party proceeding the City filed on April 12, 2024 remains unresolved, which is why the case name still records the City as a party.

Why Commonwealth’s Natural Use Argument Did Not Defeat the Pleading

Commonwealth argued that a copper pipe supplying gas to a furnace describes an ordinary use of a building. The Court held that the rule turns on a user inappropriate to the place, and found sufficient material facts of such a use in the proposed pleading.

Commonwealth’s argument was straightforward. The proposed pleading described an intruder cutting and removing a portion of a copper pipe that supplied natural gas to the furnace located in the building. A furnace fed by a gas line describes what most buildings contain, so on Commonwealth’s reading the plaintiffs had pleaded a natural use and defeated their own claim.

The Court declined that reading. The ordinariness of the equipment is not the test, because that approach separates the use from the place where the use occurs. Under Smith v. Inco Ltd. the touchstone is damage from a user inappropriate to the place where the thing is maintained.

The reasons do not identify which pleaded facts were decisive. Read against the proposed pleading, the significance appears to lie not simply in the presence of a gas furnace, but in the circumstances of an active pressurized gas service at a long-vacant building. The finding is a pleadings finding and nothing more. Mr. Justice Tindale stated that the issue needs to be determined at trial after hearing all of the evidence. For an owner, the decision creates an argument to be met at trial, not a settled rule.

Amending a Pleading Against a Running Limitation Clock

The parties agreed that the Rylands v. Fletcher claim was a new cause of action. The Court declined to decide the expiry of the limitation period on a summary proceeding, and allowed the amendment on the assumption that the period had run.

Commonwealth also argued that the new cause of action was statute-barred. The explosion occurred on August 22, 2023, the basic period under section 6 runs for two years, and the amendment was sought by a notice of application filed on March 24, 2026. Measured from the date of the explosion alone, the proposed new cause of action appeared to fall outside that period.

The plaintiffs relied on the discovery rule in response. Their position was that the RCMP file, received on July 16, 2025, first disclosed the gas supply arrangement, the retainer of Paladin, and the state of the alarm system. Section 8 asks when a claimant knew or reasonably ought to have known those matters, so on the plaintiffs’ account the clock started in the summer of 2025.

Commonwealth replied by pointing to the first Sakamoto affidavit of May 20, 2024. That affidavit set out an awareness that the building was vacant, that damage had been caused by the explosion, and that a smell of natural gas had come from the building. Commonwealth argued from that evidence that awareness of the cause of action probably preceded the expiry of the period.

Mr. Justice Tindale declined to resolve that dispute on the application. Determining the expiry of the limitation period on a summary proceeding without hearing all of the evidence would be inappropriate. The Court asked instead if allowing the amendment is just and convenient on the assumption that the period had run, answered that question in the plaintiffs’ favour, and expressly preserved the limitation defence for trial.

For Owners of Buildings Left Vacant

The decision introduces a potential claim against a vacant building owner that does not depend on proving negligence. If the elements of Rylands v. Fletcher are ultimately established, the reasonableness of the security arrangements is not the whole of the analysis.

Liability for a vacant building would ordinarily be examined through negligence principles, including the adequacy of the fencing, patrols and alarm monitoring the owner put in place. A strict liability claim raises a different inquiry. Where the rule is established, the reasonableness of those measures is not the controlling question.

An owner taking a building out of service must decide what to do about the utilities. The decision shows that maintaining a live gas service in a building left vacant for an extended period may support a Rylands v. Fletcher argument, depending on the surrounding facts. The issue may be particularly relevant to owners holding property empty while a redevelopment is planned.

The record that answers such a claim is created before the loss, not afterwards. Utility account records, decommissioning instructions and the dates a service was isolated establish what the owner actually maintained on the land. Those documents rarely receive attention until the dates become decisive.

For Security Contractors and Their Records

Paladin was added as a defendant on evidence the Court found sufficient to proceed in negligence. The security services contract and a security inspection report brought the contractor into a proceeding commenced in January 2024.

Paladin took no position, so the addition was unopposed. The Court nonetheless recorded a finding that the evidence on the application establishes a factual basis to proceed against Paladin in negligence, and did not rely on the absence of opposition alone.

The evidence supporting that finding was documentary, and came from the plaintiffs’ affidavit material. Mr. Sakamoto attached the contract between Paladin and Commonwealth for security services, together with a Security Inspection Report describing the work done by Paladin at the building. The plaintiffs argue that the alarm system went unset in the weeks before the explosion, an argument that depends on records of that kind.

The lesson for a contractor concerns the record more than the claim. Inspection reports and alarm activation logs are created to demonstrate performance to the client. Those same documents may later become central evidence in assessing the contractor’s potential exposure to a third party. The order joining Paladin came on August 28, 2026. By then more than three years had passed since the explosion, and a contractor answering such a claim will often depend far more on contemporaneous records than on individual recollection.

For Neighbouring Occupiers Claiming Interruption Losses

Encore Promotions Inc. ceased trading while the premises were repaired. The plaintiffs seek recovery for business interruption alongside the physical damage to their premises, advancing claims that include negligence and strict liability.

The plaintiffs’ loss is commercial as much as physical. The explosion at 422 Dominion Street damaged the leased premises directly across the alley, and closed the business operating there. The reasons describe repairs awaited to both the premises and the lands, and an interruption to the business.

A neighbour suing in negligence must prove a failure to meet a standard of care. Such a claimant may have limited access to information about the condition, operation and security of the property from which the loss originated. Strict liability alters that burden where the elements are established.

The plaintiffs’ own experience illustrates the point. They said that material information about the gas supply, security retainer and alarm system emerged only after counsel received the RCMP investigation file. The decision shows why newly obtained investigative material warrants prompt assessment for facts that may support additional causes of action, particularly where limitation issues arise in commercial litigation of this kind.

For Insurers Facing Subrogated Claims

An insurer indemnifying a loss of this kind stands in the position of the insured when pursuing recovery. A strict liability route changes that position, because recovery does not depend on proving a failure of care by the neighbouring owner.

Subrogated recovery follows the insured’s rights. Where the insured is a neighbouring occupier, the claim open to the insurer is the claim open to that occupier, including any pleading under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The addition of a strict liability route therefore changes what a subrogating insurer can advance.

Timing matters as much as theory. The plaintiffs here did not learn of the gas supply arrangement or the security retainer until counsel received the RCMP file on July 16, 2025, almost two years after the explosion. An insurer that has already paid may face the same delay in identifying every party worth pursuing.

Vacancy also tends to engage the terms of a property policy. No policy was before the Court, and the reasons say nothing about coverage. The point for an insurer is that the same vacancy behind the strict liability argument is likely to matter on the coverage side as well.

The Questions Left Open for Trial

The Court decided a pleading application, not the claim. The limitation defence, the character of the use of the building, and the negligence claim against Paladin all remain for determination at trial.

The limitation defence survives intact. Mr. Justice Tindale allowed the amendment without prejudice to Commonwealth raising the defence at trial. The expiry of the basic period under section 6 remains a live question, as does the operation of the discovery rule under section 8.

The character of the use remains open on the same footing. The Court found sufficient material facts pleaded, and stated that the issue needs to be determined at trial after hearing all of the evidence. A trial judge on a full record may take a different view of the same gas service.

As at September 10, 2026, no publicly reported appellate decision in this proceeding has been identified. A ruling at trial on the character of the use would give owners of vacant buildings a clearer answer than the pleading stage can provide.

The Wider Significance for Vacant Property

Strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher is more often associated with reservoirs and industrial escapes. The decision shows the rule being tested against an ordinary commercial arrangement, a vacant building with an active utility service.

Commentators have questioned the continued existence of the rule as a distinct cause of action, a debate the Ontario Court of Appeal canvassed in Smith v. Inco Ltd. before declining to recast the rule. The same judgment describes the non-natural use element as a flexible standard that adjusts to changing patterns in society. That flexibility allowed the proposed pleading to survive.

Vacancy appears to be an important part of the factual context. A live gas service may be entirely ordinary in an operating restaurant. The plaintiffs were permitted to argue that maintaining the same service at a building vacant for several years constituted a use inappropriate to the place. The significance of vacancy, duration and the other surrounding circumstances remains for trial.

One practical step follows for any party facing a loss of this kind. Investigative materials held by police, fire officials or an origin and cause expert frequently carry the facts that identify the responsible party. Requesting those materials early builds the record that answers a limitation defence. The dates on which each request was made and answered are themselves evidence.

The practical value for an owner planning a long vacancy lies in having the argument identified now, well before a trial judge rules on the point in this or another proceeding. The full reasons are published on the Courts of British Columbia website.