Minimum Maintenance Standards and the Municipal Act, 2001: Lessons Learned from Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid
Author | C. Kirk Boggs and Meredith E. Jones |
Pages | 451-476 |
Minimum Maintenance Standards
andtheMunicipalAct
LessonsLearnedfromThornhill
(Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid
C. Kirk Boggs and Meredith E. Jones*
A. INTRODUCTION
Giventhatoneoftheprima ryfunct ionsoflocalgovernmentist hecon-
structiona ndmaintenance ofstreets andhighwaysitis notsurpri sing
thataccidents occurri ngon municipal roadsprovide the largestsingle
source of claims against mun icipalitiesHowever unlike individual
citizens the powers duties and responsibilities of mun icipalities are
principally derived from statute and correspondingly in most Can-
adianjurisdictionsamunicipalitysdutytokeepitspublichighwaysand
bridgesinareasonablestateofrepairhasbeencodiedbystatute
Historicallythe legislature and the court shave made itclear t hat
amun icipalityi snot to betreatedas an in surerof the safet yof those
usingits highways andbridgesA municipalit ysobligationis to take
reasonableactiontokeepitshighwaysandbridgesinareasonablestate
ofrepair in the circumstancesincludingt hecharactera ndlocation of
CKirkBoggsisapartnerintheInsuranceDefenceLitigationHealthLawandClass
Proceedingsprac ticegroupsatLerner sLLPandiscertiedbytheLawSociet yof
UpperCanadaasaSpecia listincivi llitigationMeredit hEJonesisanassoc iatein
theInsura nceDefenceLitigationa ndHealthLawpracticegroupatLer nersLLP
DGBoghosianJMDavisonQCThe Law of Municipal Liability in Ca nadaloose-
leafMarkhamONBuerwort hsatBoghosianDavison
Ibid.
Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of ) v. ShadidOJNoatparaSCJ
Thornhill
CKBMEJ
thehighwayorbridgeAmunicipalityisnotandcannotbeexpectedto
makeallofitsroadspassableatalltimesandinallweatherconditions
Thatsaidwhatisconsideredreasonableactionandareasonablestate
ofrepair hasbeensubject toover acentur yof analysisa ndlitigation
As our roadsvehiclesa ndma intenance technology have evolvedso
hast hescope of a municipalitysduty of repairW hatwas reasonable
repairinthesorsmaynolongerbeviewedasadequatebyour
courtsWhiletheunderlyingprincipleshavelargelyremainedthesame
theirapplicationtospeci cfactsituationshas changedovertime asso-
cietyandthecour tshavesoughttoexpandgovernmentsresponsibility
forourdaytodaysafetyWhilenodoubtbenecialfromapublicsafety
standpoint this philosophical shi from a more individual to a more
collectiveresponsibilityhasdramaticallyincreasedthena ncialburden
on municipalities as they aempt to meet the increased ex pectations
placedonthemThepressuretofundhigherlevelsofservicehasinevit-
ablycomeintoconict witht hecontinuous demandtodec reasetaxes
While a statutorily imposed duty of care is not subje ct to the policy
vsoperationaldecisionanalysisthereal ityisthatnumerousdecisions
withrespecttocompetingnancialprioritiesimpactonamunicipalitys
abilitytoprovideserviceImposingliabilityi nthefaceofthesecompet-
ingdemandscanbeafrust ratingexperienceforamunicipality
In Ontario the Municipal Act imposesa duty on a munici-
palcorporationtokeepitsh ighwaysinareasonablestateofrepairThe
MunicipalActalsoimposescivilliabil ityonamunicipality whose
defaultin its duties results in damages to an individual Through an
analysis of section of the Municipal Act Ontario Regulation
Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal HighwaysMMS
andt herecent decision in Thornhill (Litigation Guardian) v. Shadidthi s
paperwillexa minethe currentstate ofthelawi nOntariow ithrespect
to a municipalitysduty to keep its highways in a reasonable state of
rep ai r
HDavidet aledsThomson Rogers on Municipal Lia bilityAuroraONCanadaLaw
Bookat
SOcMunicipalAct
Thornhill supranoteatparaGRustDEyeOBarMosheedsThe Ontario
MunicipalActAUsersManualTorontoThomsonCarswellat
Thornhill ibid
To continue reading
Request your trial