Reform of Joint And Several Liability For Municipalities
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association requests that the Government of Alberta:
1. Reform the current joint and several liability regime to more equitably allocate the burden of funding total damage awards amongst all parties found to be liable; and
2. Investigate the alternatives to joint liability that have been adopted in other jurisdictions in order to arrive at the best alternative considering the interests of all parties to a lawsuit.
WHEREAS the current legislative regime dictates that, if liability is assessed against more than one defendant, that liability is to be apportioned jointly and severally amongst those defendants;
WHEREAS a finding of joint and several liability can result in municipalities, who are often seen as the defendant with seemingly limitless public resources at their disposal, paying vastly more than their proportionate share of liability;
WHEREAS municipalities can raise the funds necessary to satisfy a judgement through taxation; municipalities are often added to lawsuits to guarantee that a plaintiff will receive full compensation, provided that the municipality is found in any way responsible for any of the damage; and
WHEREAS the majority of American states and four states in Australia have also reformed their joint liability schemes.
Jun 2011 - Municipal Affairs
Joint and several liability reform is a complex issue, involving significant impacts for the tort system and potential plaintiffs and defendants. We understand that the Alberta Law Reform Institute reviewed the issue of joint and several liability in its general application in Alberta, and determined that there was no need to alter the law.
The Government of Alberta is not intending at this point to open up the issue of reform on joint and several liability, but is prepared to review further information on this matter.
AUMA followed up with the ministry on some possible JSL issues that could be addressed.
Ministry of MA responded on Aug 21, 2012 that this matter will be dealt with during the MGA Review.
AUMA considers this response.