Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 JUNE 2016

A Refresher On The Test For Gross Negligence: Zaravellas v. Armstrong, 2016 ONSC 3616

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

In a recent slip and fall decision, Zaravellas v. Armstrong, 2016 ONSC 3616, the Court found that the City of Toronto sidewalk in question was not in a dangerous condition and that the City was not grossly negligent.

CanadaInsurance

In a recent slip and fall decision, Zaravellas v. Armstrong, 2016 ONSC 3616, the Court found that the City of Toronto (the "City") sidewalk in question was not in a dangerous condition and that the City was not grossly negligent. Note that this decision also includes reasons for dismissing a separate personal injury action brought by the Plaintiff against the Toronto Transit Commission.

At about 5:30 p.m. on December 23, 2007, the Plaintiff was walking eastbound on the north side of Huntingwood Drive from his home on Blueberry Drive to catch a bus to the Scarborough Town Centre. One week prior, the City had experienced a severe snowstorm. Although the City had worked hard to clear the snow and ice, the Plaintiff testified that the sidewalk on Huntingwood was "very bad" on the date of loss and covered by a one-inch thick layer of ice. Despite the weather conditions, the Plaintiff wore the same rubber-soled shoes that he wore throughout the year. As he was walking

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from