Category: Municipal liability

Stamatopoulos v. The Regional Municipality of Durham, 2019 ONSC 603

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred when the driver of the vehicle in which he was a passenger lost control of the vehicle and struck a hydro pole. The plaintiff commenced an action for damages against the relevant municipality for non-repair of the roadway, alleging that the accident was caused or contributed to by a dip in the road. Justice Copeland held that none of the dip in the road, the absence of signage warning of the dip, the location of the hydro pole, the absence of a barrier, nor the steepness of the road’s side slopes constituted a state of non-repair. Therefore the municipality did not breach the applicable standard of care and was not negligent. The claim was dismissed.

Townsend v. City of Kitchener

The minor plaintiff was injured from a trip and fall over a raised concrete edge of a buried metal transformer box owned by the defendant Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. The transformer box was located on a driveway apron road allowance owned by the defendant City of Kitchener. The two defendant homeowners owned the properties adjacent to the road allowance. The homeowners brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissals of the claims against them. The homeowners’ only involvement with the apron was driving their vehicles over it, removing ice and snow, and applying salt as needed. Justice Broad held that there was no genuine issue for trial and dismissed the claims against the homeowners. He affirmed that two exceptions exist at common law to the principle that a homeowner is free from liability for injuries arising from failure to maintain municipally owned streets and sidewalks: (1) the “special circumstances” exception; and (2) the “flow exception”. He held that neither of these exceptions applied in this case.

Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762

A municipality’s duty of care does not extend to remedying conditions that pose a risk of harm only with negligent driving. In this case, the defendant driver stopped at a stop sign several meters behind a faded stop line. He accelerated from the stop sign and T-boned a minivan in which the plaintiff was a passenger. The trial judge found the municipality defendant 50% liable for failing to repaint the faded stop sign. The Court of Appeal allowed the City’s appeal, finding that drivers who fail to comply with the rules established under the Highway Traffic Act and who act in a manner contrary to common sense fall below the standard of an ordinary reasonable driver.

Smith v. Safranyos, 2018 ONCA 760

The plaintiff sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that took place in a four-way intersection in the City of Hamilton. The intersection had one through road and one road with a stop sign. The plaintiff commenced an action against the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision and the City of Hamilton for non-repair of the roadway. At trial, liability was apportioned 50% to the defendant driver, 25% to the plaintiff, and 25% to the City. With respect to the City’s fault, the trial judge held that the servient road required a painted stop line and that sight lines for vehicles approaching the intersection were not appropriate and did not meet the reasonable repair standard. The plaintiff and the City each appealed the trial judge’s liability findings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the City’s appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the four-step test for municipal liability under s. 44 of the Municipal Act set out in Fordham v. Dutton-Dunwich (Municipality); did not err in law in finding that the absence of a stop line constituted non-repair; did not commit a palpable and overriding error in finding that sightlines constituted non-repair; and did not err in her application of the “but for” test for causation. The plaintiff’s appeal was upheld, but a new trial was not ordered.

House v. Baird, 2017 ONCA 885

The Appellant was driving his friend Baird’s car in rural Ontario. Three other friends, including Baird, were passengers in the car. The Appellant lost control of the car, it moved into the oncoming lane, and it was struck by an approaching vehicle. One passenger in the Appellant’s vehicle was killed and the other occupants of the vehicle were injured. The trial judge found that the car had worn and defective tires and found the Appellant and Baird equally liable for causing the MVA. The trial judge considered the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways, O. Reg. 239/02, and found that unanticipated ice formed in the area where the MVA occurred, that the municipality was unaware of this ice until after the MVA occurred, that the municipality had a reasonable system for monitoring road conditions, and that the municipality was not required to conduct an after-hours patrol for speculative purposes. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision.