Davis v. Grand

Davis v. Grand

The Court of Appeal held that statutory transfer of roads under s.23(6) does not automatically and instantly extinguish the transferor municipality's liability for negligent non-repair existing prior to transfer; factual issues (knowledge, opportunity to inspect, causation and passage of time) remain and therefore summary judgment for the Region was improper; the Region's motion was dismissed and the summary judgment set aside.

Citation
C39969, C39973
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas James Davis; Janet Davis; Thomas Christopher Davis; Jennifer Davis; Jeffrey Davis (by his litigation guardian Christopher Richard); Defendant: David Grand; Defendant: Terry Grand; Defendant: Darlene Grand; Defendant: Canada Life Casualty Insurance Company; Defendant: Scott Gordon Hoover; Defendant: Clifford Hughes; Defendant: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls; Defendant: The Corporation of the City of Thorold; Defendant: The Town of Port Robinson; Defendant: The Corporation of the City of Welland; Defendant: The Regional Municipality of Niagara; Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario)
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment on Summary Judgment Motion)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision granting summary judgment set aside; Region's motion for summary judgment dismissed; matter remitted for trial on factual issues
Legal Topics
Road Transfer, Duty to Maintain Highways, Summary Judgment, Liability for Prior Negligence, Transfer of Municipal Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Tort Negligence Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Road Transfer Duty to Maintain Highways Summary Judgment +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas James Davis; Janet Davis; Thomas Christopher Davis; Jennifer Davis; Jeffrey Davis (by his litigation guardian Christopher Richard)

Plaintiff

David Grand

Defendant

Terry Grand

Defendant

Darlene Grand

Defendant

Canada Life Casualty Insurance Company

Defendant

Scott Gordon Hoover

Defendant

Clifford Hughes

Defendant

The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls

Defendant

The Corporation of the City of Thorold

Defendant

The Town of Port Robinson

Defendant

The Corporation of the City of Welland

Defendant

The Regional Municipality of Niagara

Defendant

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment on Summary Judgment Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transfer of roads under s.23(6) of the Regional Municipalities Act instantly and completely extinguishes the transferor's liability for prior non-repair under s.284 of the Municipal Act
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was appropriate to determine liability arising from alleged pre-transfer negligence given factual issues of causation and notice
  3. 3 Whether patent versus latent defects affect the continuing liability of a transferor municipality

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that statutory transfer of roads under s.23(6) does not automatically and instantly extinguish the transferor municipality's liability for negligent non-repair existing prior to transfer; factual issues (knowledge, opportunity to inspect, causation and passage of time) remain and therefore summary judgment for the Region was improper; the Region's motion was dismissed and the summary judgment set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision granting summary judgment set aside; Region's motion for summary judgment dismissed; matter remitted for trial on factual issues

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted to the Region by the motions judge set aside
  • The Region's motion for summary judgment dismissed and the action against the Region to proceed to trial on factual issues