The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unanimously in favor of a woman from Nelson who was injured while walking through a snowdrift plowed by the city in 2015.
Seven judges from Canada’s highest court issued a ruling against the city on Thursday, October 21 after hearing arguments on March 25.
The decision wasn’t whether Marchi was injured – both sides agreed she was. Instead, the seven judges had to decide whether a municipality’s basic policies, such as snow removal, are immune from negligence claims.
Their decision concluded that snow removal is operational and not a basic policy. He also said a new trial should be ordered because the city owed Marchi a duty of care or a responsibility to avoid acts or omissions that could cause harm.
Base policies, the court ruled, remain protected from liability under Canadian law.
The lawsuit began with heavy snowfall in January 2015. The city had cleared Baker Street, its main downtown thoroughfare, and created snow banks along the sidewalk and on the sidewalk.
Marchi, then 28, parked her car on Baker on January 6 and attempted to cross the snowbank after seeing no entry allowed on the sidewalk.
She suffered a serious injury to her right foot, sued the city for negligence, and left no openings to allow safe access to the sidewalk.
Marchi’s case was heard for the first time in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Judge Mark McEwan ruled in favor of the city, writing that Marchi was “the author of his own misfortune” and that the city cannot be held liable for damages for policies such as snow removal that are created in good faith.
Marchi continued with his case and won at the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who ruled that McEwan made errors of fact and law in his decision and said there should be a new trial.
But that did not happen because the city appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The city and Marchi have already agreed to $ 1 million in damages.
A new trial could also call into question Nelson’s snow-clearing operations. It gives priority to snow removal and sanding in city streets, but does not say where to put the snow plowed or whether the passages through the snow banks created must be cleared.
There were eight interveners in the case, each of whom defended the city’s policies being free of any liability. They included the City of Toronto, the City of Abbotsford, and the Attorneys General of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Canada.
More soon…
“Coffeeaholic. Lifelong alcohol fanatic. Typical travel expert. Prone to fits of apathy. Internet trailblazer.”