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 Hryniakhas 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.