Ince v. Toronto (City)

Ince v. Toronto (City)

The Court held that the evidence did not establish gross negligence by the City: the City had taken ordinary remedial measures (spreading sand) and the sand was rendered ineffective by an exceptional high wind; therefore the statutory exemption applied and the City was not liable.

Citation
(1901) 31 SCR 323
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Maria Ince, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Henry Ince, Deceased; Respondent (defendant): The Corporation of the City of Toronto
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 May 1901
Procedural Posture
Torts — Negligence (municipal Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
Legal Topics
Maintenance of Streets, Snow and Ice Hazards, Gross Negligence, Liability Exemption for Municipalities Under Statute
Source Language
English
Torts Municipal Law Negligence Statutory Interpretation Maintenance of Streets Snow and Ice Hazards Gross Negligence Liability Exemption for Municipalities Under Statute

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Ince, Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Henry Ince, Deceased

Appellant (plaintiff)

The Corporation of the City of Toronto

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Torts — Negligence (municipal Liability) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City was grossly negligent under R.S.O. 1897 c.223 s.606(2) such that municipal immunity for icy places is displaced
  2. 2 Whether the evidence (including alleged faulty original grade and the City's remedial acts) established gross negligence
  3. 3 Whether ordinary municipal measures (spreading sand) are sufficient to satisfy duty absent gross negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the evidence did not establish gross negligence by the City: the City had taken ordinary remedial measures (spreading sand) and the sand was rendered ineffective by an exceptional high wind; therefore the statutory exemption applied and the City was not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario (27 Ont. App. R. 410) affirmed.