Owens v. Brantford (City)
On the uncontested facts the municipality's duty to repair under s.284 did not extend to pedestrian traffic at the location of the accident, and therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40806
- Parties
- Appellant: Janet Lee Owens; Respondent: The Corporation of the City of Brantford
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Municipal Duty to Repair, Statutory Interpretation, Pedestrian Liability, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Janet Lee Owens
Appellant
The Corporation of the City of Brantford
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the municipality's statutory duty to repair under s.284 of the Municipal Act extends to pedestrian traffic at the location of the accident
- 2 Whether the municipality's duty to repair is limited to areas specifically designated for pedestrian traffic
Ratio Decidendi
On the uncontested facts the municipality's duty to repair under s.284 did not extend to pedestrian traffic at the location of the accident, and therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,300.00.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Owens v. Brantford (City) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-05-10 Docket numbers C40806 Judges Doherty, David H.; Laskin, John Ivan; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20040510 DOCKET: C40806 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: JANET LEE OWENS (Appellant) v. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRANTFORD (Respondent) BEFORE: DOHERTY, LASKIN and FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: Karl Beyer for the appellant Brian Grant for the respondent HEARD: May 5, 2004 RELEASED ORALLY: May 5, 2004 On appeal from the judgment of Justice B.H. Matheson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 25, 2003. ENDORSEMENT [1] We agree with the trial judge's approach. The municipality's duty to the plaintiff is rooted in its statutory duty to repair found in s. 284 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.4. [2] On the uncontested facts, there was no basis upon which the municipality's duty to repair under s. 284 could extend to pedestrian traffic at the location of the accident. In so holding, we should not be taken as accepting that the municipality's duty to repair extends to pedestrians only at areas specifically designated for pedestrian traffic. As the section says, the municipality: shall keep roads in the state of repair that is reasonable in light of all of the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge [emphasis added]. [3] In the result, we dismiss the appeal. [4] Costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,300.00. "Doherty J.A." "John Laskin J.A." "K. Feldman J.A."