Robert Sugar

The municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims arising from a catastrophic motor vehicle collision at a rural stop‑controlled intersection.

The plaintiffs alleged that the municipality failed to maintain proper sight lines and failed to reinstall a stop bar after resurfacing, contrary to guidance in the Ontario Traffic Manual.

Competing expert reports addressed whether vegetation and the absence of pavement markings contributed to inadequate sight distance and whether the roadway was in a reasonable state of repair under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Applying the full appreciation test from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held that the conflicting expert evidence prevented a proper determination on a summary judgment record.

The issues of roadway maintenance, sight lines, and causal contribution required a full trial.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for an advance payment of $1 million (the insurance policy limits) from one set of defendants to a plaintiff under disability.

A co-defendant opposed the approval, arguing the payment would only benefit the plaintiffs' counsel to fund ongoing litigation and that the Insurance Act did not contemplate such a payment without an admission of liability.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no prejudice to the co-defendant and concluding that the advance payment would benefit the plaintiff.

The court approved the advance payment and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.