Zaravellas v. Armstrong, 2016 ONSC 3616
A good refresher on the test for Gross Negligence
Released June 3, 2016 | Full Decision [CanLII]
On December 23, 2007 the Plaintiff fell on a City of Toronto sidewalk, which was covered in ice. A severe snow storm had occurred one week prior and the City had been working to clear the snow and ice from this storm. In his determination of whether the City was grossly negligent, the trial judge cited a two part test:
- Was the municipality’s general policy with respect to ice and snow removal a reasonable one?
- Was the municipality’s response on the occasion in question (that is to say, the implementation of its policy) reasonable?
The Court found the City was not grossly negligent. They had a number of measures in place to deal with the presence of ice and snow on the roads and sidewalks, including patrols, ploughing plans, and a complaint system. The trial judge also found that on the occasion in question, the City’s response was reasonable. Thy City initiated their ploughing operations when the heavy snowfall began and continued until conditions improved on December 21, 2007. The temperature remained above freezing on the day before and after the Plaintiff’s fall and for that reason it was reasonable for the sidewalks to remain unsalted.
Despite not finding any gross negligence, the trial judge assessed the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence at 25% for wearing shoes that were not fit for the weather.
Read the full decision on CanLII