Court File and Parties
CITATION: Ryan v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 2009 ONCA 344
DATE: 20090429
DOCKET: C48399
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Juriansz, MacFarland and Watt JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Geraldine Ryan
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie
Defendant (Appellant)
Counsel: John C. Walker for the defendant(appellant) Jeff Broadbent for the plaintiff (respondent)
Heard and released orally: April 16, 2009
On appeal from the judgment of Justice G.W. Tranmer of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 21, 2008.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The City of Sault Ste. Marie appeals from the judgment of the trial judges that found based on its findings that the City was grossly negligent in its failure to maintain its sidewalks at the time that the respondent slipped, fell and suffered injuries.
[2] After a detailed review of the facts, the weather and the policies and practices of the City relating to sidewalk maintenance, the trial judge set out the basis of his conclusion that the City was grossly negligent. The matters he mentioned, include:
There is no evidence that any consideration was given to the weather that occurred the day before the accident or to whether there should be a decision to treat the sidewalks earlier than the normal shift the day of the accident. This was despite the City’s recognition that the weather conditions were highly conducive to thawing and then freezing overnight giving rise to hazardous sidewalk conditions and the City’s acknowledgment that one way in which such a situation could be dealt with included calling out the sidewalk operators prior to their normal daily start times.
The City’s policy regarding its priorities for sidewalk handling provided no guidance to supervisors and operators. The City’s policy lacked sufficient written criteria to permit supervisors and operators to determine when to activate non-routine operations such as calling out sidewalk operators earlier.
The City configured its routes so that 11 schools were included in one route area. It took the operator his entire shift to service the priority one sidewalks, and routinely he did not reach the site of the accident before 10:00 or 11:00 a.m.
The operator did not differentiate between priority one and priority two sidewalks.
The operator did not adapt his daily route to given weather conditions as his supervisor testified he should.
[3] These findings supported the trial judge’s conclusion that the City was grossly negligent. The trial judge applied the proper legal test and the appellant has not demonstrated any palpable and overriding error in his application of that test to the facts before him.
[4] The appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”
“J. MacFarland J.A.”
“David Watt J.A.”