Case information

Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Municipal notice period — Municipal liability — Delayed notice — Applicant suing City for intersection design flaw after car accident — Summary judgment motion granted and applicant’s action against City dismissed — Applicant did not provide reasonable excuse for delayed notice — Whether “ought to know” standard in Ontario so high that motoring public is deprived of redress against municipalities for hidden defects — Whether Ontario lost comity with other provinces and territories in application of discoverability principle to municipal liability —Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, R. 20 — City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, ss. 42(6) and 42(8).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

On March 28, 2015, Peter Psaila was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the respondents Nick and John Kapsalis. The accident occurred at an intersection that the respondent City of Toronto (the “City”) was responsible for designing and maintaining. In December 2015, Mr. Psaila commenced an action for damages against the Kapsalises. Discoveries were completed in early 2017. On February 1, 2018, the Kapsalises served an expert engineering accident reconstruction report which found Mr. Psaila responsible for the accident. Subsequently, Mr. Psaila retained his own expert engineer, who immediately advised him to put the City on notice for a potential negligence claim regarding an intersection design issue. The City did not receive notice of the action until April 2, 2018. The City brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, on the basis that Mr. Psaila failed to comply with a statutory ten-day municipal notice period as required by s. 42(6) of the City of Toronto Act 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.

The motions judge granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Mr. Psaila had failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay in providing notice to the City. Mr. Psaila’s action against the City was dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr. Psaila’s appeal, upholding the motions judge’s summary judgment decision.