Supreme Court of Canada Sides With Wounded Woman in Nelson Snow Clearance Dispute

Article content

OTTAWA – A woman will have another chance to sue for damages for a leg injury she sustained while climbing through snow plowed by a city plow, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled.

Article content

Taryn Joy Marchi alleged that the city of Nelson created a hazard when it shook snow from downtown streets after a storm in early January 2015.

The removal effort left piles of snow on the edge of the street along the sidewalk early in the morning of January 5.

In the late afternoon of January 6, Marchi, then a 28-year-old nurse, parked on a sloping spot in the street and, wearing running shoes with a good footprint, tried to cross a pile of snow to get to the sidewalk. .

His right foot fell through the snow and he fell forward, seriously injuring his leg.

Marchi argued that the city should have left openings in the snowbank to allow safe passage to the sidewalk.

He pointed to the neighboring townships of Castlegar, Rossland and Penticton, arguing that there were preferable ways to clear the streets to ensure safe access for pedestrians.

Article content

However, the trial judge dismissed his case, saying the city was immune from liability because it made legitimate decisions about snow clearance based on the availability of personnel and resources.

In any event, the judge concluded, Marchi took the risk of crossing the snowdrift and was “the author of her own misfortune.”

The BC Court of Appeals overturned the decision and ordered a new trial, saying the judge was wrong to address the city’s duty of care and the issue of Marchi’s negligence.

The ruling prompted the city of Nelson to seek a Supreme Court hearing.

In a written submission to the superior court, the city said its actions amount to “a stark example of a central political decision” that should be immune from liability.

Article content

In his court filing, Marchi said city employees made a series of operational decisions that fell short of a municipality’s expected standard of care – decisions not required by written policy.

In its 7-0 ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court said a new trial should be held because the city has not proven that its decision on how to clear the snow was “a central political decision” immune from liability.

While there is no indication that the city made an irrational or “bad faith” decision, the city’s central political defense fails and owed Ms Marchi a duty of care, Justices Sheilah Martin and Andromache Karakatsanis wrote. on behalf of the court.

“The regular principles of negligence law apply to determine whether the City breached its duty of care and, if so, whether it should be liable for Ms. Marchi’s damages.”