The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for damages arising from a trip and fall on a municipal sidewalk.
The trial judge had found the municipality was not liable under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the state of repair.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to assess the adequacy of the inspections, failed to weigh business record evidence, and reversed the onus of proof.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the inspection adequacy, weighing of evidence, or application of the burden of proof.
