How Far Does Municipality Liability Stretch? The Case of Martin v. Barrie (City)

How Far Does Municipality Liability Stretch? The Case of Martin v. Barrie (City)

On May 28, 2018, the Court of Appeal provided some clarification as to the extent that a municipality can be held liable for personal injuries during festivities that it hosts.

Background

In Martin v. Barrie (City), 2018 ONCA 499, the Court of Appeal reviewed a trial decision that found a municipality had satisfied the standard of care contained in the Occupier’s Liability Act. The appellants (the plaintiffs) were parents who brought their children to the Winterfest and Festival of Ice hosted by the City of Barrie, the respondent (the defendant). At the festivities, there were a number of attractions one of which was a snow slide catering primarily to children.  Two of the children went down the slide and were fine. Their mother followed suit but, as she neared the bottom of the slide, she tried to slow down her sliding by digging in her heels and she sustained a bruise to her tailbone after hitting a small piece of ice protruding from the snow.

The trial judge found that the standard of care for the municipality under the Occupier’s Liability Act was one of reasonableness. The trial judge noted that it would be unfair to impose on municipalities perfection as their standard of care.

 

The Issues on Appeal

(1) Did the trial judge make a palpable and overriding error by concluding that the piece of ice was “small”?

(2) Did the trial judge err in the inference made by a hearsay utterance regarding the state of the slide’s landing?

(3) Was the trial judge’s analysis the municipality’s standard of care correct based on the evidence?

 

Analysis

With respect to first issue, the court upheld that the size of the ice not visible to the appellant nor was it larger than her own testimony of “5 to 6 inches”. The judge properly characterized the piece of ice.

On the second issue, the court fairly interpreted the hearsay utterance by an employee.

To answer the third issue, the Court referenced Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 to reiterate that the standard of review of negligence cases is palpable and overriding error.  It found that the judge had correctly found that although a more rigorous inspection process may have detected the ice, requiring such a process would place too high of an onus on the City.  The standard was reasonableness, not perfection.

Municipal insurers will remain hopeful that this kind of analysis for “reasonableness” will continue to be applied by the courts, even where the injuries are more serious than a bruised tailbone.

Insights & Commentary

ONCA Clarifies Existing Jurisprudence Regarding the Disclosure of Settlement Agreements - photo
  • Commentaries

ONCA Clarifies Existing Jurisprudence Regarding the Disclosure of Settlement Agreements

By Landan Peleikis Introduction The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Poirier v. Logan[1] serves as a stark reminder of the detrimental consequences that result from failing to immediately disclose settlement agreements to non-settling parties. Background The respondents, Jeremy Logan and Morey Chaplick owned the respondent M.C. Capital Corp. (“M.C. Capital”). M.C. Capital ran a … Continued

The Court of Appeal upholds 26-month notice period in Currie v. Nylene Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 209 - photo
  • Commentaries

The Court of Appeal upholds 26-month notice period in Currie v. Nylene Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 209

In Currie v. Nylene Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 209, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an award of a 26-month notice period on the basis of “exceptional circumstances”. Background The plaintiff, Diane Currie, brought an action against her former employer after she was terminated.  Ms. Currie started working for her employer in September 1979.   In … Continued

by

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario - photo
  • Commentaries

A Great New Resource: Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario

Stieber Berlach LLP is pleased to share an important new free textbook, Civil  Procedure and Practice in Ontario, which includes contributions from Katie Di Tomaso as an author of two chapters annotating sections 1-5 and 15-24 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and Christian Breukleman as an author of the chapter on Rule 29 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with Third Party Claims. CPPO is … Continued

by

Human Rights Tribunal Finds “Good Faith” COVID-19 Restrictions Can Still Be Discriminatory, Sets Benchmark Monetary Award. - photo
  • Commentaries

Human Rights Tribunal Finds “Good Faith” COVID-19 Restrictions Can Still Be Discriminatory, Sets Benchmark Monetary Award.

JL v. Empower Simcoe 2021 HRTO 222 In a recent decision confirmed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) May 7, 2021 (2021 HRTO 348), the HRTO has ruled that COVID-19 restrictions and protocols accepted to benefit the health of the public can still be discriminatory under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”).  Restrictions … Continued

by

All News