No Duty on Municipality to Stop Teens from Climbing Trees

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from a trial decision which held that a municipality was not liable for a teenager who fell out of a tree and was rendered paraplegic.

In Winters v. Haldimand (County), 2015 ONCA 98 (C.A.), the 16-year-old plaintiff was "hanging out" with friends at a municipal park.  The tree from which he fell was one he and friends had climbed numerous times and was a type of willow found all over Ontario.  The evidence was that generations of teenagers had climbed the tree and there had never been a report of an injury before the plaintiff's incident, save when someone twisted an ankle getting out of the tree.  None of the park personnel who were at the park weekly observed anyone in the tree.  The plaintiff's mother had never seen anyone in the tree and was unaware her son and his friends used it.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no error in the trial judge's decision, stating:

[16]      Any danger posed by this tree was an obvious one.  If you chose to climb it you could fall and be injured. There is no duty to warn of such an obvious and self-evident danger nor any duty to monitor beyond what the Township is doing at the time of this most unfortunate accident.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to award costs against FLA claimants, holding that there is no general rule that no costs should be awarded against FLA claimants.

Congratulations to Sheila Handler and Brian McCall of McCall Dawson Osterberg Hanlder LLP, who were counsel at trial and on appeal.

Municipality Has No Duty to Negligent Drivers

The Court of Appeal recently held that there is no duty on the part of a municipality to keep its roads safe for those who drive negligently.  It also rejected an argument that there is a different standard for rural and urban drivers.

In Fordham v. Dutton-Dunwich, 2014 ONCA 891 (C.A.), the 16-year-old plaintiff was seriously injured when he came to a rural intersection, ignored a stop sign and drove through the intersection at 80 km/hr.  He lost control on a curve and crashed into a concrete bridge abutting the road.  The trial judge found the municipality 50% responsible for failing to post a checkboard sign warning of the change in the road's alignment.  She held that it was local practice for rural drivers to go through stop signs and the municipality should have known that ordinary rural drivers do not always stop at stop signs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.  Laskin J.A. held that a municipality's duty of repair is limited to ensuring its roads can be driven safely by ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care.  In addition, there cannot be one standard of reasonable driving for rural drivers and another for city drivers.  There is one standard of reasonable driving and that standard requires drivers to obey traffic signs.

Fordham helps define a municipality's standard of care: although ordinary reasonable drivers are not perfect and may make mistakes, they are not negligent.

City Not Liable for Icy Boulevard

In 2013, we blogged on a decision by Justice Gorman dismissing a claim where the plaintiff fell on a sloped boulevard between the street and the sidewalk, Bondy v. London.  The link to the blog post can be found here.  The plaintiff appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, at 2014 ONCA 291 (C.A.).  The parties agreed that the boulevard was a "highway" within the meaning of the Municipal Act.  The Court of Appeal held that the highest standard to which the area needed to be maintained was as a highway for vehicles, not as a passageway for pedestrian traffic. 

The plaintiff argued on appeal that because from time to time people cross the road in the middle between intersections, it creates a special circumstance that elevates the standard of maintenance.  The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that "The fact that people may cross at undesignated places on a road does not create or impose on the Municipality a higher level of maintenance obligation."  There were also no special circumstances that created an obligation on the adjacent property owner to maintain the boulevard.

Municipal Toboganning Case Dismissed

The Municipality of Leamington recently successfully defended a case where the plaintiff alleged she was injured tobogganing.  In De Cou v. Leamington, 2014 ONSC 6044 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff was injured while sledding down a hill in a park run by Leamington.  Although the Town was aware that people used the hill, there had been no complaints about it.  The plaintiff was 29 years old and had been sledding on the hill since she was 5.  The Town did not maintain the park in the winter.

Justice Carey held that there was no breach of the duty of care.  The plaintiff willingly assumed the risk.  Justice Carey held that "Going down a snow covered hill in February  on a light piece of material (be it plastic, cardboard, Styrofoam or wood) is a typical Canadian winter experience.  Falling off a sled is also part of that experience."  There was no causal link between the Town's failure to supervise or inspect the hill and the plaintiff's injuries.  The case was dismissed.

Action Dismissed for Failing to Provide Municipal Notice

A recent decision dismissed a plaintiff's claim against a municipality for failing to give notice within 10 days, as required by the Municipal Act.

In Seif v. City of Toronto, 2014 ONSC 2983 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk.  She did not provide notice to the City for four months.  She stated she was unaware of the Municipal Act notice requirement. She was on painkillers for 3 days, was mobile within a week of the accident and was able to focus on a job search in the weeks after the accident.  The Court found that the delay in giving notice was as a result of her indecision as to whether to bring an action.

Justice Morgan dismissed the action.  Even though the notice requirement is "very unfair", it is a specific statutory requirement that can only be changed by the legislative.  The exception to the notice requirement is to accommodate plaintiffs whose delay is as a result of their injuries.  The plaintiff had no reasonable excuse for the failure to comply with the notice requirement.  Whether or not the City was prejudice was not relevant.

This is a useful decision for those dealing with a notice issue.

Action Against Municipality Dismissed for Failure to Give Notice

The new test for summary judgment as set out in the Supreme Court in Hryniak has been applied to dismiss a claim against a Municipality for failing to give notice as required by s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

In Hennes v. City of Brampton, 2014 ONSC 1116 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk.   He did not give notice until 18 months after the fall, contrary to s. 44(10) which provides for a 10 day notice period.  The plaintiff admitted he knew the City owned and maintained the sidewalk and that ice caused his fall.  He claimed he had a reasonable excuse for failing to give notice as he did not know how serious his injuries were until months after the fall. 

The Court did not accept that the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse; he did not seek advice about his rights or obligations for over a year after a claim was apparent.  In addition, the plaintiff bore the onus to show the Municipality was not prejudiced by the failure to give notice, and he failed to do so.  The plaintiff did not take timely photographs, and had not disclosed the contact information or a summary of a potential witness.  The action was dismissed. 

Hennes is a good example of how the new summary judgment rule can be used to dispose of a claim at an early stage. 

Action Against Municipality for Failing to Repair Potholes Dismissed

Justice Leach has conducted a thorough review of the standard of care for a municipality as it relates to potholes in the decision of McLeod v. General Motors of Canada, 2014 ONSC 134 (S.C.J.).  In McLeod, the action against a rural municipality was dismissed.

Ms. McLeod was injured on September 18, 2004 on a rural gravel road in Dutton-Dunwich.  She lived on the road and had been coming home from a nearby social gathering on the night of the accident.  The plaintiff alleged she was surprised by the headlights of an oncoming vehicle, and lost control of her vehicle due to potholes on the road.  The plaintiff called lay witnesses who felt the potholes never improved and were always present.  A number of witnesses alleged they complained to the municipality and wanted the road to be paved.

Justice Leach held that the road was not in a state of disrepair.  Gravel roads are inherently dynamic.  The presence of loose stone near the edges of the road would not be unusual, dangerous or unreasonable in the circumstances.  There were eight potholes with diameters of 6"-12", none of which was deeper than 2".  The condition of the road was reasonable in the circumstances, having regard to the rural nature of the township, the number of similar roads within the municipality's jurisdiction, the municipality's limited resources, the road's low traffic volume, and the obvious nature of the road's surface, alignment and elevations.

Even if he had held the road was in a state of disrepair, Justice Leach would have held the municipality was entitled to rely on the statutory defences set out in s. 44(3) of the Municipal Act.  Firstly, the municipality had no knowledge of a defect.  Although complaints were allegedly made, they were informal (such as in coffee shops) and vague or general.  Secondly, the municipality took reasonable steps to prevent the default from arising as it had a regular system of grading.  Thirdly, the municipality met the Minimum Maintenance Standards for inspection and pothole repair.

Although it is a lengthy decision, McLeod is a worthwhile read for those defending municipal claims. 

 

Municipality Not Liable in Recreational Trail Case

Recently the Ontario Courts found a municipality not liable, under section 4(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act, for the plaintiff’s fall off the edge of a ravine. In coming to this finding the court took an expansive view of when this section applied and indicated what is required to meet the lower standard of care under this section.

In Pierce v. Hamilton(City), 2013 ONSC 6485 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff entered the park on a marked recreational trail near the edge of the Niagara Escarpment, he then left the trail and proceeded on an unmarked dirt path and fell off the edge of the ravine sustaining physical injuries. The City of Hamilton acknowledged that they were the occupier of the premises, but asserted they had met the standard of care.  The trail itself qualified as a recreational trail and was clearly marked as such, but the issue was whether the dirt path also qualified.  The Court held that the standard of care was the same as if the plaintiff was on a marked trail, stating:

“If that owner is given the benefit of the lower standard of care in return for allowing the public to enjoy the recreational trail on the land, it makes no sense to saddle the owner with the higher standard of care the moment a hiker or cyclist or skier moves off of the recreational trail. Further, it makes no sense for two different standards of care to alternately apply as a trail user hops on and off of the recreational trail.”

Given this, the plaintiff was deemed to have willingly assumed all risks associated with the premises and the lesser standard set out in section 4(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act applied.

The Court accepted the evidence of the representative of the City that they had not received any previous complaints of people falling into the ravine and thus had no information that would suggest there was an unusual danger on any dirt path in the park area.   Justice Henderson rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the City failed to meet the standard of care for failing to conduct inspections of the park, for failing to have warning signs and for failing to construct a protective fence.  Justice Henderson held that it would be impossible for the City to conduct regular inspections of the 3,000 acres of natural areas. Regarding the signage and fencing, the Court held:

“As to signage, clearly a specific warning sign was not warranted if the City was not aware of any specific danger... I find that the failure of the City to erect a more general warning sign, such as "Caution. Uneven Ground in the Woods" does not constitute a breach of its duty. Such a warning sign would in fact be a sign stating the obvious; that is, that the terrain in the woods is uneven and unpredictable... I also reject the plaintiffs' submissions that the City ought to have built a barricade or a fence near the drop-off into the ravine. The danger of a sharp drop in elevation in a wooded area that was near the edge of an escarpment should be obvious to anyone who entered the woods.”

This case builds on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the Schneider v. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority case regarding when section 4(1) applies and highlights the lower standard of care under this section.

Action Against Municipality Dismissed for Failing to Give Notice

In August of last year, we reported on Argue v. Tay (Township), in which the action was dismissed for the failure to give notice required by s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.  The plaintiff argued that the municipality had actual or constructive knowledge of the accident because the municipal fire department attended the scene.  The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which has now dismissed the appeal at 2013 ONCA 247 (CanLii).

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the plaintiff had the onus of establishing that she had a reasonable excuse for not providing notice and that the municipality was not prejudiced.  The motions judge held that she failed to meet her onus.  The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis or his application of the relevant principles.

This is an extremely helpful decision in cases where the plaintiff has failed to provide notice to the Municipality.

City Not Liable for Icy Boulevard

The City of London has successfully defended a slip and fall action that occurred following a winter storm.  In Bondy v. London (City), [2013] O.J. No. 1281 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff slipped and fell on the paved portion of the boulevard abutting the city sidewalk, which was used to access her driveway. The night before the plaintiff fell there was a heavy freezing rain storm, which continued throughout the night and into the morning.  Schools were closed and radio announcements recommended citizens stay off roads and sidewalks. The adjacent property owned salted the sidewalk but not the boulevard. The City decided to call in its sidewalk equipment operators at midnight and they were deployed at 4:30 a.m.  In the area of the plaintiff's fall, operators were deployed from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with the route taking 12-14 hours to complete.

The case involved a number of issues, including whether the boulevard qualified as an untravelled portion of the highway, whether adjacent property owner was liable for failing to salt the boulevard, whether the Municipal Act or Occupier's Liability Act applied, and the standard of care for the municipality.  Justice Gorman held that the boulevard was not part of the untravelled portion of the highway.  In addition, the City could not deflect liability onto the adjacent property owner in the circumstances, as they did not exercise control over the area.

Ultimately, Justice Gorman held that the City had met its standard of care.  It had complied with the Minimum Maintenance Standards for icy roadways. The plaintiff was entitled to expect a highway to be in a good condition, but "when the weather is so treacherous as to require the broadcast of public warnings, one travels at one's peril". Although the action was dismissed, the decision that the boulevard was not part of the untravelled portion of the highway poses a problem: are municipalities now expected to salt these areas?

Action Dismissed for Failing to Comply with Municipal Act Notice Requirement

Argue v. Tay (Township), 2012 ONSC 4622 (CanLii)

A municipality was recently successful in having a case dismissed based on the failure of the plaintiff to comply with s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.  The section requires written notice be given to the clerk within ten days of the incident.  Section 44(12) provides that the failure to give notice can be excused if the plaintiff has a reasonable excuse and the defendant is not prejudiced by the lack of notice.

In Argue v. Tay (Township), the plaintiff alleged she sustained soft tissue injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by potholes in the defendant municipality's road.  She provided written notice through her lawyer almost two years after the incident.  By that time, the surface of the road had changed materially.  The plaintiff argued the municipality had either actual or constructive knowledge of the accident as the municipal volunteer fire department attended the scene and would have received a copy of the police report.  The municipality brought a summary judgment motion seeking to have the action dismissed for failing to comply with the Municipal Act notice requirement.

DiTomaso J. held the plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements.  Section 44(10) requires written notice be given to the clerk and the fact that the fire department attended or may have received a copy of the police report was insufficient to comply with the section.  There is no support in the jurisprudence that actual or construction notice pre-empts the requirement to give written notice to the clerk, and the section cannot be dispensed with in favour of notice to a different municipal department.

The plaintiff had no reasonable excuse for the failure to give notice.  She was discharged from hospital the same day as the accident, had no broken bones and was able to return to work two to three weeks after the accident.  She was aware people could bring lawsuits and believed the state of the road contributed to the accident, yet took no steps to inform herself about the law.  She was physically and mentally able to instruct counsel. 

The municipality had been prejudiced by the lack of notice.  There is a presumption of prejudice where notice has not been provided and the plaintiff bears the onus of showing there was no prejudice.  She failed to do so.  Neither she nor the municipality had photos or measurements of the road, the condition of the road had changed materially since the accident and the municipality had lost the opportunity to interview witnesses.  As a result, summary judgment was granted.

Argue is a useful summary of the relevant authorities relating to s. 44(12). Those defending municipal claims with notice issues should consider whether it would be useful to bring a summary judgment motion in the circumstances.

Minimum Maintenance Standards Ruled Inapplicable

Giuliani v. Halton (Municipality), 2011 ONCA 812 (C.A.)

The Giuliani decision was released by the Court of Appeal on December 21, 2011. The plaintiff lost control of her vehicle when the road she was travelling on was covered with snow and ice. Approximately two centimetres of snow had fallen on the road which impacted and turned to ice.

The weather forecasts beginning the afternoon prior to the date of the accident indicated that snow would fall beginning the next morning. The trial judge found that the Town had ample time to schedule a person or crew to monitor the weather and road conditions and to place a maintenance crew on standby.

Salting operations did not begin until fifteen minutes after the accident occurred. It was not clear when the icy road conditions were first discovered. It was held that the Town “failed to inspect the roads when it ought to have known that an inspection was necessary to trigger the remedial steps necessary to maintain [the road in question]”.

The trial judge held that the defendants had complied with the Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) with respect to treating the icy roadway within the required time after becoming aware of its icy condition. However, the trial judge held that this was not a defence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision and held that sections 4 and 5 of the MMS do not establish minimum standards to address the accumulation of 2 centimetres of snow on a Class 2 roadway (they apply when there is a 5 cm accumulation), nor do they establish a minimum standard for the treatment of a highway before ice is formed and becomes an icy roadway. The Town was liable for failure to monitor the weather and the failure to deploy resources to prevent the road from becoming icy. Therefore, the analysis did not centre on the MMS as the MMS does not establish a minimum standard for the treatment of a highway before ice is formed and becomes icy.

The analysis turned to section 44(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 requiring municipalities to take reasonable steps. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that reasonable steps were not taken with respect to monitoring the weather and lining crews up in advance.

This case raises the bar significantly with respect to what the courts require of municipalities to meet the reasonableness standard. It also takes away much of the certainty that was provided to municipalities by way of the MMS. An increased proactive approach to maintenance of roadways will be required.

̶ Kristen Dearlove, Student-at-Law

Statutory Duty of Care

Morsi v. Femer Paving Ltd. [2011] O.J. No. 3960

This is an appeal from a trial decision that held York Region and Femer Paving Ltd each 25 % liable for a single car motor vehicle accident. The deceased was driving in excess of the speed limit, ignoring speed and construction signs and lost control of his vehicle when the road surface changed from fresh pavement to gravel.

The trial judge held that the plaintiff was 50% to blame for the accident, leaving the defendants with the other 50%.

York Region and Femer Paving appealed the decision.

York Region’s main submission was that after the trial Judge correctly stated the main issue and the test for resolving the issue …

“Whether at the material time Major Mackenzie drive was in a state of repair that was reasonable in the circumstances such that users of the road, exercising ordinary care, could travel upon it safely.”

… that he did not apply the test to the facts of the case.

“The evidence of Detective Stock and the Varicom tests as well as the evidence of Constable Herbert and the various engineering experts establishes that if Mark Morsi had operated his vehicle at the posted speed or even a speed modestly above it, he would have been able to successfully negotiate the transition area.”

The Ontario Court of Appeal found the driver to be reckless having accelerated to 117 km/h through a long curve and straightaway and ignoring two 60km/h speed signs, a reverse curve sign, a 40 km/h advisory sign and two construction signs. This was not a driver exercising ordinary care.

The appeal was allowed and the action by the driver’s family was dismissed.

- Alison McBurney

Municipality attempts to exert rights to shoreline road after discovering a 150 year old By-law

Meaford (Municipality) v. Grist [2011] O.J. No. 4188

This is an interesting case regarding an 1854 By-law that had been found in 2004, which purported to create a municipal/public road along the shore of Georgian Bay.

Some of the named defendants brought two summary judgment motions claiming that there are no genuine issues requiring a trial. The action is disputed by the defendants because the road would take away approximately 66 feet of their shorelines lands.

The road had not been registered on title until 2007 after the Municipality discovered the By-law.

The Municipality’s argument, among other things included the doctrine of dedication and acceptance.

Justice Daley set out the test for the common law doctrine of dedication and acceptance/ long user:

Dedication depends on the intention of the donor and also acceptance of
the road by public authority.

There are three conditions:

1. An owner of the land on which the road is situated had formed the
intention to dedicate the land to the public road or highway;

2. The intention was carried out by the road being thrown open to the
public; and

3. The road was accepted by the public.

Dedication can occur by usurpation and long enjoyment.

Where members of the public continually use the road over a long period
of time, dedication may be inferred.

Justice Daley stated that the plaintiff bears the onus “upon a preponderance of probability to demonstrate that the conditions necessary for the establishment of dedication and acceptance were all present”. He then refers to the Reed v. Town of Lincoln [1973] decision where the “cogency of the evidence required to satisfy the burden … may vary … according to the nature of the issue with respect to which the burden must be met.”

Using this ruling, he bolsters the onus requiring the municipality to “satisfy the onus by a clear and substantial preponderance of evidence that the property owners have lost the title to a portion of their property which now constitutes a public road”.

Meaford argued that the public highway existed prior to the by-law. It was held that there was no genuine issue for trial; the plaintiff had not offered any physical/documentary evidence. Even if there had been a road, the time from the initial Crown grant in 1840 to the date of the by-law in 1854, is not enough time to find a “long user”.

It was further held that there was no dedication and acceptance in modern day, for many reasons, including:

1. The municipality graded the road approximately twice a year –
otherwise had no involvement in the upkeep.

2. The municipality entered into a maintenance agreement with the
cottage owners association.

3. In 1986, part of the road had washed away and the municipality had
not restored the road. In fact, the owner of the property had a
different portion of his property, severed, re-zoned and built a
private driveway (no dispute that this “inland” driveway was a
private road).

4. The “inland” driveway was maintained pursuant to the maintenance
agreement.

5. The defendants were bona fide purchasers for value and the cottages
built on the lots comply with zoning by-laws in regards to set back
from the water’s edge and not from the disputed road.

6. There was no evidence of municipal funds or labour to build, maintain
or restore the road.

7. The municipality, in this action, was only trying to lay claim to a
very small potion of the road that the By-law purported to create.

Justice Daley held that there was no evidence of actual or implied dedication or acceptance and was held not to give rise to any issues requiring a trial.

He went further to state that the municipality had slept on their rights for over 150years and applied the doctrine of laches and acquiescence and that “quite apart from all of the other reasons expressed (in the 192 paragraphs), it would be unjust to grant Meaford’s claim”.

This post was prepared by our Associate Alison McBurney.

Gross Negligence Standard for Municipal Sidewalks

In Richer v. Elliot Lake [2001] ONSC the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk. In accordance with s. 44(9) of the Municipal Act, the standard of care is lowered from ordinary negligence to gross negligence.

Koke J. referred to the 1927 Supreme Court of Canada decision, Holland v. City of Toronto, that defined gross negligence as “very great negligence”. Thum v. Elliot Lake [1999] O.J. No. 3158 held that the degree of negligence is context specific and listed elements to consider: 1) notice of the existence of a dangerous condition which authorities actually had or which should be imputed to them; 2) their opportunity to remedy it; 3) the state of weather immediately before the accident; and 4) the relative situation of the place where the accident occurred.

In the current case, the court found as a fact that there had been a thaw-freeze cycle, there was a sheet of ice which caused the plaintiff to fall, there was no evidence of any sand at the scene, city crews had been sent out to clear and sand the streets and sidewalks following the snow fall, and there were not any other reported complaints that evening.

Koke J. appears to have given the most weight to the plaintiff’s own testimony that he walked to work that morning and walked about ¾ of a kilometer after leaving work before falling. He stated that he didn’t have any problems walking on the sidewalks prior to the fall.

The court held that overall the plaintiff was not able to show that on the evening in question the condition on the city’s sidewalks was generally slippery or icy. There was nothing to suggest this was not an isolated incident. Koke J. went on to say that even if the court were to find the city negligent for not spreading sand on the sidewalk at that location, this would constitute negligence, not gross negligence.

Gross Negligence

The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld a decision which found that the City of Mississauga’s response to a winter storm event was reasonable, Billings v. Mississauga (City), 2011 ONCA 247, [2011] O.J. No. 1449 (C.A.).

The plaintiff, Douglas Billings, claimed injuries suffered in a slip and fall accident on a City sidewalk following a major snow and ice storm.

The sidewalk in question had not been cleared of snow and ice within 36 hours after the winter storm.  The City’s snow removal policy required that snow and ice be removed from sidewalks within 36 hours and the City had failed to meet that target. Nevertheless, the trial judge found that the storm had been an extraordinary event. The trial judge carefully reviewed the City’s systems, personnel and policies for dealing with snow storms and concluded that the City’s response to the storm was "completely reasonable."  The City’s response to the storm did not amount to “gross negligence”, which is the standard mandated by statute.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge’s conclusion.

This case should assist municipalities in defending claims of personal injury caused by snow or ice on a municipal sidewalk. It is interesting that the City was found to have acted reasonably even though it did not meet its objective of clearing snow and ice from sidewalks within 36 hours after a storm event.

Action dismissed due to failure to comply with Municipal Act notice provision

Zogjani v. Toronto (City), [2011] O.J. No. 1002 (S.C.J.)

In this slip and fall case against the City of Toronto, the City brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with the 10 day notice period provided by section 44(10) of the Municipal Act. The plaintiff slipped and fell on December 22, 2005 on snow and ice on a Municipal sidewalk. She consulted a lawyer in February 2006 and notice was provided to the City on March 1, 2006. The plaintiff swore that until she met with the lawyer on February 28, 2006, she was not aware of the 10 day notice requirement in section 44. Since the plaintiff failed to comply with section 44(10), it was her onus to show that she fit within subsection 44(12) of the Municipal Act, which provides that the failure to give notice is not a bar to the action if a judge finds that there is reasonable excuse and the Municipality is not prejudiced in its defence.

The City’s argument was that because it did not receive notice of the claim in a timely manner, the City’s investigator was unable to investigate the location promptly and could not observe or record the conditions of the location at the time of the accident. The plaintiff’s response was that snow would have melted in the days immediately following the incident and so even if the 10 day notice period had been met, there was no practical prejudice to the City.

The City’s field investigator swore an Affidavit indicating that he patrolled the area 4 days before the date of loss and 6 days after the date of loss. If he had been notified immediately, he would have been able to recall what the road and sidewalk conditions looked like during his patrols; however, because the City did not receive notice until 2 ½ months later, he was unable to recall what the location looked like at the time of his patrols.

Justice Lauwers was satisfied that the Municipality was practically prejudiced by the effect of the delay on the field investigator’s memory. He granted summary judgment.

At times it may seem that section 44(10) is a limitation period without teeth; however, in the right circumstances and with the right evidence proffered on a motion for summary judgment, section 44(10) can be a useful tool with which to dispose of an action at an early date.

The Hills Are Alive... With Danger

Deering v. Scugog (Township), [2010] O.J. No. 4229 (S.C.J.).
Howden, J. discussed the duty that road authorities owe to motorists in the case of Deering v. Scugog (Township), [2010] O.J. No. 4229 (S.C.J.), a case involving a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 10, 2004, which left two teenage sisters severely injured.

Shannon Deering, the older sister who was 19 years old at the time, was driving her 2002 Pontiac Grand AM up a hill on Coates Road West in Oshawa, when the headlights of an eastbound vehicle appeared over the crest of the hill. The vehicle moved to the right, then arced left, and finally veered to the right over the shoulder of the road.

Justice Howden ultimately found that the segment of Coates Rd. West was in a state of non-repair because in his view, the hill where the accident happened “represented a virtually unique source of danger to ordinary drivers, particularly at night due to its combination of features likely to create an emergency situation with little or no preview time for westbound drivers to deal safely with it”.

At the time of the accident, Coates Road West was paved and flat for close to two kilometers, after which it climbed and fell away over three hills. The third hill was the most significant, and in August 2004, the road had no lane markings, no signage, and an un-posted speed limit of 80 km/hr.

In July 2004, the road was involved in a rehabilitation project to improve the road’s base and surface. The aim of the rehabilitation project was to provide an adequate sub-structure and surface treatment. By July 20, 2004, a dark-coloured sealant or emulsion was applied to the road as the final phase of the project. Immediately afterwards the road was re-opened in its otherwise previous state which was unsigned, unlit and unlined.

After a review of the relevant case law, Justice Howden determined that road authorities have a duty to ordinary motorists to keep their roads in reasonable repair, including the type and location of the road. The standard of care uses as the measure of reasonable conduct the ordinary reasonable driver and the duty to repair arises wherever an unreasonable risk of harm exists on the roadway for which obvious cues on or near the road are not present and no warning is provided, subject to certain defences.

Howden, J. stated that “The ordinary motorist includes those of average range of driving ability – not simply the perfect, the prescient, or the especially perceptive driver, or one with exceptionally fast reflexes, but the ordinary driver who is of average intelligence, pays attention, uses caution when conditions warrant, but is human and sometimes makes mistakes.”

He further declared that “the duty to repair under section 44 should no longer ignore the need in circumstances of pre-design age roads near areas of urban change and growth to incorporate assessments of safety measures into road rehabilitation and reconstruction projects”.

This blog contribution by articling student Alex Lacko.

More on Crinson v. Toronto, 2010 ONCA 44.

Two days ago I blogged on a comment left from an Indian lawyer to my blog of February 27, 2010.

That discussion revolved around the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Crinson v. Toronto (City), 2010 ONCA 44.

The case has received attention in an article by Stuart Huxley, legal counsel, City of Ottawa, in a case comment printed in the Municipal Liability Risk Management journal, (2009-10) 11 Mun. L.R. Mgt. (Volume 11, Number 4).

In that article, Mr. Huxley helpfully reviews the history of the Court of Appeal decision and noted that the trial judge had found that the plaintiff was in the hospital for five days after the trip and fall, which included surgery, and during that period was on morphine and Tylenol. The plaintiff was drowsy and "out of it". Following his discharge from the hospital, the plaintiff took Percocets for two weeks. Despite this medication, the trial judge held that the plaintiff was not so incapacitated that he was unable to arrange for the required notice to be given to the municipality. Thus the plaintiff's claim was held to be statute barred by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal held that there was ample evidence to support "reasonable excuse".

Mr. Huxley concludes his article with the realistic comment that failture to give notice as required by the Municipal Act, 2001 months after an accident will require a municipality to consider whether to push the notice defence. Questions that municipalities will continue to face will be whether or how a municipality should defend such actions or whether they should just concede and pay.

Benefit of the Doubt has to be given to the Victim

It is not often we get comments on our blog. It is even rarer when we get a comment from someone who is outside Ontario, much less Canada. So it was good to read the comment from Ms Sindhu Yadav of Choir de Law Pvt. Ltd, India (and who I presume to be a colleague lawyer), to my February 27, 2010, blog on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Crinson v. Toronto (City), 2010 ONCA 44.

The title I gave to that blog entry was "Ignorance of the Law can be a Reasonable Excuse", which perhaps showed my concern with the Court of Appeal's decision. However, the comment from Ms Sindhu Yadav of India was, "The decision of Court of Appeal is highly welcome. In such cases the maxim "Ignorance of law is no excuse" is defeated. Benefit of doubt has to be given to the victim."

That is an interesting comment. Please keep the comments coming...