Alexandra Victoros

The plaintiff brought an action under Simplified Procedure for damages sustained from a trip and fall on a city-owned sidewalk, alleging non-repair.

The parties agreed on damages, and the trial proceeded solely on liability.

The court found that the sidewalk's discontinuity, measured between 17.462 mm and 18.5 mm, did not exceed the 20 mm threshold set by the Minimum Maintenance Standards (O.Reg. 239/02), and thus was deemed to be in a state of repair.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove non-repair, and the action was dismissed.

Despite the dismissal, the court also found the plaintiff 20% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout on a familiar sidewalk.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the Crown and a road maintenance contractor as defendants after the presumptive expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability.

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the icy road conditions from the motor vehicle accident report and her own application for statutory accident benefits, but failed to show due diligence in investigating the potential liability of the road maintenance authorities within the limitation period.

The motion to amend the Statement of Claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality after slipping and falling on an icy city sidewalk.

The city had no policy to call in maintenance operators before their regular 7:00 a.m. start time to address icy conditions caused by overnight thaw-freeze cycles, despite having a policy to do so for 8 cm of snow.

The court found the city's policy unreasonable and held the city grossly negligent under the Municipal Act, 2001.

However, the plaintiff was found 50% contributorily negligent for wearing running shoes instead of winter boots and failing to walk around the visible ice.