The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a claim arising from a sidewalk trip-and-fall near a London residence, finding that the plaintiff had not proven the sidewalk was out of repair under the Municipal Act, 2001. In the alternative, the Court held that the City’s decision not to inspect sidewalks during the COVID-19 emergency was a protected core policy decision and, in any event, the City had a statutory defence.
In Weiler v. City of London, 2026 ONSC 2011, Fay Weiler tripped and fell on a city-owned residential sidewalk on March 11, 2021. She and her family sued the City for damages. The parties agreed that she tripped on a raised sidewalk edge, or surface discontinuity, and that the City was responsible for sidewalk maintenance. The main dispute was whether the defect exceeded the two-centimetre threshold under the Minimum Maintenance Standards.
The plaintiff argued the surface discontinuity was above that threshold and that the City’s failure to carry out its annual sidewalk inspection meant the walkway was not in a reasonable state of repair. The City responded that the plaintiff had not proven the defect exceeded two centimetres and, even if it had, the inspection decision was made in good faith during the COVID-19 emergency and was therefore immune from liability.
The Court accepted the City’s evidence. It found the plaintiff had not shown, on a balance of probabilities, that the defect exceeded two centimetres. The Court preferred the City’s measurements, which showed the discontinuity ranged from about 1.2 to 1.7 centimetres, and held that the sidewalk was therefore in a state of repair under the applicable standards.
Emergency Decision Protected
The Court went on to hold that, even if the defect had exceeded the regulatory threshold, the City’s decision not to inspect the sidewalk in 2020 was a core policy decision protected by immunity. The City had reduced services and staffing in response to the provincial and municipal states of emergency declared during the pandemic. The Court found that the decision was made in good faith, in response to urgent public health and budgetary pressures, and was not irrational or taken in bad faith.
The Court also found the City had a statutory defence under section 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001 because it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the sidewalk condition before the plaintiff’s fall. The other statutory defences did not apply, but only one defence was required.
The Court rejected contributory negligence, finding nothing unreasonable about the plaintiff’s conduct as she walked home in appropriate footwear on a clear day.
Why It Matters
This decision is a useful reminder that municipal liability claims often turn on precise measurement evidence and the statutory maintenance standards governing sidewalks. It also confirms that, in exceptional circumstances such as the COVID-19 emergency, municipalities may be able to rely on core policy immunity and statutory defences where service reductions were made as part of broader public policy decisions.
At Flaherty McCarthy LLP, we advise and defend clients in premises liability and personal injury litigation, with a focus on strategic risk management and strong appellate awareness. Contact us for more information.
