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.