Last September, the Quebec Superior Court ordered the City of
Montreal to pay more than $1 million in damages to a woman who
became paraplegic and to her family following a cycling accident on
a city street.1
The woman was cycling under an overpass where there was no bike
path. As she passed over the drain covers that extended almost
across the entire street, her bicycle came to a sudden stop and she
was thrown off. There was no indication to cyclists that they
should use the elevated sidewalk rather than the roadway.
The City argued that the street in question was not
"designated as a cycling route." However, it admitted
that the part of the street where the accident happened was
frequently used by cyclists.
The court found that although the street had no bike path,
minimum safety standards should have been respected, observing that
it was foreseeable that many cyclists would use the route and that
the City owed them a duty of care and diligence. Such a duty
implies that the City take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of
those who [translation] "use the City's infrastructures in
a normal, foreseeable and authorized manner."
The court found that the drain covers posed a significant risk
for cyclists and that by installing them on a roadway where bicycle
traffic was authorized the City failed to discharge its duty to
In spring 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld another decision of
the Superior Court in which the City of Montreal was also ordered
to pay damages to a cyclist who fell while cycling on a street with
no bike path. In that case, one of the wheels of the bicycle became
stuck in a depression in the street.2
These recent decisions show that when cyclists use streets that
have no bike paths and their use is normal, foreseeable and
authorized, municipalities have an obligation to ensure their
Thus, particularly during routine inspections, municipalities
should look out for and fix any "traps" on routes that
cyclists can be expected and are authorized to use, in order to
1 Wilson Davies c. Montréal (Ville de),
2011 QCCS 4756. This judgment has been appealed.
2 Scanlan c. Montréal (Ville de), 2008 QCCS
5414 and 2011 QCCA 614.
Norton Rose OR LLP
Norton Rose OR LLP is a member of Norton Rose Group, a leading
international legal practice offering a full business law service
to many of the world's pre-eminent financial institutions and
corporations from offices in Europe, Asia Pacific, Canada, Africa
and the Middle East.
The Group's lawyers share industry knowledge and sector
expertise across borders to support clients anywhere in the world.
The Group is strong in financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and pharmaceuticals and life sciences.
Norton Rose Group has more than 2600 lawyers operating from 39
offices in Abu Dhabi, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing,
Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Dubai, Durban,
Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne,
Milan, Montréal, Moscow, Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth,
Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney,
Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate offices in Dar es
Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta.
Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose
Australia, Norton Rose OR LLP, Norton Rose South Africa
(incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective
On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon merges with Norton
Rose OR, creating a global energy and mining powerhouse within
Norton Rose Group. For more information, please visit
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This paper discusses contract law issues including decisions of relevance to commercial lawyers and business leaders giving a snapshot of particular principles of interest that arose in case law over the past 12 months.
In the case Cantin c. Ameublements Tanguay inc., 2016 QCCS 4546 (the "Cantin Case"), the Superior Court of Quebec granted authorization of a proposed class action by consumers against various respondents...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).