Canada: The Municipal Act: Minimum Maintenance Standards Revisited By The Ontario Court Of Appeal

On Monday, March 28, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal released their decision, Lloyd v. Bush, 2017 ONCA 252. This case was an appeal by the County of Lennox and Addington (the "County") and the Corporation of the Town of Greater Napanee ("the Town") from a trial level decision that found the respective municipalities liable for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident.1

Facts

On the morning of January 3, 2003, Leslie Lloyd was returning home travelling east on an "S-curve" portion of the road known locally as "Rankins Corner". A commercial propane truck, operated by David Bush, was travelling west on County Road 9. Leslie had driven about one kilometre and partly through Rankins Corner when her vehicle collided with David Bush's propane truck in the middle of the road in the easterly part of the "S-curve".

At the time of the accident, County Road 9, including the centre and fog lines in Rankins Corner, was covered in snow. David Bush's left wheels were either on or slightly over the centre-line. Upon first seeing David Bush's truck, Leslie Lloyd attempted to either brake or steer to the right to keep her vehicle in the eastbound lane; however, she lost control and caused her vehicle to swerve.2 The accident left Leslie Lloyd severely injured and with permanent disabilities.3

Judicial History

The primary ground of appeal, in this case, was with respect to the trial judge's interpretation and application of the municipal defendants' duties under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 ("Municipal Act") to clear roads of snow and ice during a snow event. The County was the owner of the road on which the accident occurred and the Town was responsible for its winter maintenance pursuant to a 1998 agreement.4

It is important to highlight the fact that this was the second trial of this matter. The first trial decision was appealed on the grounds that the trial judge showed a reasonable apprehension of bias against the plaintiffs, and as a result, a second trial was ordered. The most recent appeal was as a result of the second trial which found liability split between the municipal defendants at 60%, David Bush and his propane company at 30%, and Leslie Lloyd at 10%.5

On this appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered a third trial on the issue of liability. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not include, as part of his reasons, sufficient findings, which would allow the Court of Appeal to substitute their decision for the trial judge's decision and resolve the claim. However, in deciding the case, the Court of Appeal provided comprehensive analysis, which will provide guidance in similar cases, involving winter maintenance and duties owed by municipal defendants under the Municipal Act.

Analysis: Strategies and Tactics

Liability under the S. 44 of the Municipal Act

Section 44 of the Municipal Act sets out the duty of a municipality with respect to road maintenance,6 and requires that a municipality keeps the road in a state of repair. In this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed the four-part test set out in Fordham v. Dutton Dunwich, (Municipality), 2014 ONCA 891 in determining if the road was in a state of non-repair.7 The test can be summarized as follows:

  1. Non-Repair: The plaintiff must prove the existence of a condition of non-repair, that is, a road-based hazard that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to ordinary, non-negligent users of the road, with a view to the circumstances including the "character and location" of the road.
  2. Causation: The plaintiff must prove that the condition of non-repair caused the loss in question.
  3. Statutory Defences: If the plaintiff has proven both non-repair and causation, a prima facie case is made out against the municipality. The municipality then bears the onus of proving that one of the three independently sufficient defences in s. 44(3) applies. These defences include proof that the municipality took reasonable steps to prevent the default from arising (s. 44(3)(b)).
  4. Contributory Negligence: If the municipality cannot establish any of the statutory defences, it will be found liable. The municipality can, however, still demonstrate that the plaintiff's driving caused or contributed to his or her injuries.8

As part of this analysis, courts in Ontario will consider the varying winter conditions that may exist as well as the associated cost of clearing the road of snow. Furthermore, in past cases, courts have emphasized that municipalities should not be treated as an insurer of the safety of all users of its roads by imposing overly onerous maintenance obligations. In other words, courts have held that proof of a state of non-repair is not in itself enough to establish liability. Rather, a municipality will only be held liable for failing to clear the road of snow or ice where it had "actual or constructive knowledge that road conditions created an unreasonable risk of harm to users of the highway".9

Context Matters In Determining if the Road is in a State of Non-Repair

When considering whether a road is in a state of non-repair, a court must analyze all of the surrounding circumstances. This is inherently a fact-driven exercise. In this case, Justice Rouleau provides the following guidance:

What is deemed to be a reasonable state of repair will depend on the facts of each case. According to the plain wording of s. 44(1), the circumstances that must be considered in determining the reasonably applicable standard of repair includes the character and location of the roadway.

The jurisprudence is clear that a lower standard will apply with respect to the state of repair on a low-traffic rural roadway than on higher-traffic thoroughfares and highways. The character and population of the area are to be considered as well as the amount of traffic using the road: see Ian Rogers, The Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, loose-leaf (2016-Rel. 9), 2nd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., 2009), at para. 235.32.

As noted above, for a road to be in a state of non-repair, it must present a hazard that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to ordinary, non-negligent users of the road in the circumstances. As explained in Docherty (Litigation guardian of) v. Lauzon, 2010 ONSC 1006, [2010] O.J. No. 5017, "non-repair" is a relative concept and the condition of repair for a rural road does not impose a high standard on a municipality. Rural roadways are, "by their nature, susceptible to the development of adverse conditions. Therefore, drivers have to adjust to these conditions" (para. 206).10

...

Applying the above-noted factors, Justice Rouleau states the following:

Among those other findings made by the trial judge is that Rankins Corners was a "hot spot", meaning that the municipality recognized that it required special winter maintenance attention. Another is that, at the time of the accident, the road was very slippery.11

Therefore in considering if a road is in a state of non-repair, it is important to focus on such factors as the nature and characteristics of the road, the amount of traffic on the road, and the time of day of the accident. The analysis will necessarily shift depending on whether the road is rural in nature, if it's heavily travelled, or if it's a problematic stretch of road, and if the accident occurred at a busier time of the day. These factors help in determining the "actual or constructive knowledge" that the municipality may have had, and in turn, will assist in determining if the municipality's response was reasonable.

Minimum Maintenance Standards

In determining the proper reasonable response to a snow event, municipalities should not be limited in their response by the minimum maintenance standards. Municipalities should consider the circumstances and determine if the condition of the road poses an unreasonable risk of harm to reasonable drivers. As Justice Rouleau further explains:

The trial judge also rejected the suggestion that the municipality's duty was necessarily limited to the minimum standards imposed by the province. He found that the appellants reasonably followed a policy of sending out plows "if there was snow accumulation between midnight and 4:00 a.m. and to continue plowing until the snow was cleared."

I agree with the trial judge that mere compliance with minimum standards or guidelines is not, in itself, sufficient to avoid liability if there was an obvious deficiency or risk. The overriding question remains: in all of the circumstances, does the condition of the road pose an unreasonable risk of harm to reasonable drivers? See Fordham, at para. 53.12

Documentation is Key in Demonstrating Reasonableness of Response:

In this case, the Court of Appeal reiterated the principle that a municipality's response needs to be reasonable, not perfect. As Justice Rouleau states: "[g]iven unlimited resources, any town might be able to keep its roads centre-bare even in the middle of the worst snow storm. That, however, is not the standard to be met."13 However, in order to demonstrate this at trial, it is imperative that the municipalities furnish maintenance records with sufficient detail that can demonstrate that their response was reasonable. This did not occur in this case and the Court of Appeal made note of it:

A significant factor in assessing the reasonableness of the Town's response to the snow event is the frequency with which it plowed and applied material to Rankins Corners. At trial, this was a hotly disputed issue.14

...

[Trial Judge] found Wayne Dixon's evidence as to his plowing activities that day to be of no assistance because he kept no notes and had no independent memory of his activity on that day....

The trial judge also determined that little weight could be placed on Doug Abrams' evidence due to his lack of notes and the contradictions between his testimony and that of the other Town employees with respect to whether CR9 was his regular route and not Mr. Dixon's.

Though Vern Amey testified that he expected Mr. Dixon to have completed two return plow runs on CR9 that morning, the trial judge determined that he had no reliable evidence that this actually occurred. He found that "the only clear evidence on plow operations that morning" was that at or about 10:00 a.m. the witness Mr. Wayte followed a plow westerly on CR9.15

...

The Town led evidence suggested several applications of sand/salt mixture was applied to Rankins Corners but the trial judge was clearly reluctant to accept that evidence, as the Town's key witnesses had little or no independent recollection of their actions on the relevant day.16

Concluding Remarks

This case serves as a timely reminder to municipalities of the onus placed on them under the Municipal Act. In light of this appellate decision, municipalities may wish to consider reviewing current policies and procedures to ensure that they are able to properly respond to anticipated and unanticipated snow events. In doing so, municipalities may consider preparing policies that take into account the nature and characteristics of their roads, including identifying certain hot spots under their care and control, which may require special winter maintenance above and beyond the minimum maintenance standards. Moreover, municipalities should ensure that they have proper documentation and procedures in order to be able to demonstrate at trial the reasonableness of their response.

Footnotes

1Lloyd v. Bush, 2017 ONCA 252.

2 Lloyd v. Napanee (Town), 2015 ONSC 761at paras 169-179.

3 Lloyd, supra note 1 at paras 6-9.

4 Ibid at para 1.

5 Ibid at para 53.

6 44. (1) The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge.

Liability

(2) A municipality that defaults in complying with subsection (1) is, subject to the Negligence Act, liable for all damages any person sustains because of the default.

Defence

(3) Despite subsection (2), a municipality is not liable for failing to keep a highway or bridge in a reasonable state of repair if,

(a) it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to have known about the state of repair of the highway or bridge;

(b) it took reasonable steps to prevent the default from arising; or

(c) at the time the cause of action arose, minimum standards established under subsection (4) applied to the highway or bridge and to the alleged default and those standards have been met.

7 Ibid at para 62.

8 Ibid at para 62.

9 Ibid at para 64.

10 Ibid at paras 69-71 [emphasis added]

11 Ibid at para 73 [emphasis added]

12 Ibid at paras 74-75 [emphasis added]

13 Ibid at para 81 [emphasis added]

14 Ibid at para 87.

15 Ibid at paras 35-37.

16 Ibid at para 88.

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions