The City of Winnipeg and the Rural Municipality of Springfield are contesting a lawsuit stemming from a vehicle yard fire in Transcona, arguing the property owner bears blame for what happened. In a statement of claim filed in February, a numbered Manitoba company alleges the municipalities were negligent in their response to a May 12, 2025, blaze at 568 Gunn Rd. A grass fire began in the area surrounding the property — which the company used to rent and store vehicles — before spreading and ultimately engulfing hundreds of vehicles on site, according to the lawsuit. It says the Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service responded to and extinguished a small fire outside the property, then called for support from the Springfield Fire and Rescue Services in the adjacent RM due to a lack of water supply. Hundreds of vehicles were completely destroyed, leaving melted metal and toxic substances to seep into the soil, the filing claims. Damages are alleged to exceed $407,000. The lawsuit further alleges both departments made a “negligent operational decision” by establishing only a control line around the property rather than suppressing the flames consuming the vehicles and claims they had additional resources and opportunities to fight the blaze more aggressively. However, both municipalities are calling for the suit to be dismissed, arguing they acted reasonably and that the company’s improper storage of chemicals and failure to maintain the property in a safe condition contributed to the blaze. “The plaintiff appeared to be operating a vehicle deconstruction business with little or no regard for fire safety,” reads the city’s statement of defence filed May 11. “The property is and was tightly filled with vehicles and toxic, combustible materials.” The city argues the tight configuration of vehicles made it “impossible” for firefighters to engage directly without unreasonable risk to their safety and that the heat generated by stored chemicals meant attempting to extinguish the fire would not have been a reasonable use of resources. It also denies that its fire suppression efforts were hindered by inadequate fire hydrant infrastructure, adding that the company generally failed to adhere to the Fire Act and the Manitoba Fire Code. In its statement of defence, filed April 28, the RM says that given the nature of the stored vehicles and dangerous chemicals on site, it was too dangerous to mount a direct attack and denies it had the resources to extinguish the fire more quickly than it did. “The R.M. says that if the plaintiff suffered the alleged loss and damage, which is denied, it was caused or materially contributed to by the ultimate or contributory negligence of the plaintiff itself,” the filing reads. The RM alleges that negligence included failing to establish proper firebreaks around the storage area, allowing tall grass and small trees to grow along the fence line, failing to leave six metres of clearance between rows of salvage vehicles, and failing to properly store waste oils and fuels, among other things. Springfield’s filing also includes a crossclaim against the city, asking the court to hold Winnipeg responsible for any damages the RM may ultimately owe. Jason Kendall, legal counsel for the numbered company, said the defences filed by both municipalities were expected. “My client is preparing to place before the court a sound and convincing case as to why one, or both of these municipalities failed in their duties to them,” Kendall told CTV News. “We were expecting the types of defences raised, and will let this play out before the court.” None of the claims have been tested in court.
