Guy v. Toronto (City), [2008] O.J. No. 5126, concerns a slip and fall personal injury claim where the Plaintiff slipped on ice on a City owned laneway. The central question on liability was whether the laneway was simply a roadway for vehicles, or if it was also a footpath for pedestrians. A different standard of care would apply depending on the answer to this question.  A higher standard of care would apply if the laneway was also a footpath. The City admitted at trial that the laneway was a commercial roadway, but no more than that. Since it had become customary for pedestrians to traverse the laneway, the Court found that it was both a roadway and a footpath. However, the Plaintiff argued that the standard of “gross negligence” required under the Municipal Act did not apply since the laneway was not a sidewalk. She argued for negligence simpliciter. Nothwithstanding the dual use of the laneway, the Court decided to apply the higher standard of gross negligence.

Jim Davidson