Cities in Canada can be held liable for negligence claims, even if the injuries result from policy decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Nelson (City) v. Marchi<\/em> 2021 SCC 41<\/a>, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that cities owe a duty of care to people in their cities even when an injury results from a so called policy decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A person making a negligence claim must prove four things in court: Marchi sued the City of Nelson, BC, for her injuries that happened as she attempted to surmount a snowbank blocking her access to the sidewalk from a plowed public parking space in the city\u2019s downtown core.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The snowbank resulted from the city’s snow clearing policy. The city claimed that their policy to clear snow from roadways was pursuant to \u201ccore policy\u201d decision \u2014 rather than simply operational implementation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While the trial judge accepted the argument and dismissed the case, the BC Court of Appeal reversed the decision and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the City of Nelson’s appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada said that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Core policy decisions are decisions as to a course or principle of action that are based on public policy considerations, such as economic, social and political factors, provided they are neither irrational nor taken in bad faith. Core policy decisions are immune from negligence liability because the legislative and executive branches have core institutional roles and competencies that must be protected from interference by the judiciary\u2019s private law oversight. A court must consider the extent to which a government decision was based on public policy considerations and the extent to which the considerations impact the rationale for core policy immunity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, four factors emerge that help in assessing the nature of a government\u2019s decision: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The underlying rationale \u2014 protecting the legislative and executive branch\u2019s core institutional roles and competencies necessary for the separation of powers \u2014 serves as an overarching guiding principle for how to weigh the factors in the analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, the nature of the decision along with the hallmarks and factors that inform its nature must be assessed in light of the purpose animating core policy immunity. But the mere presence of budgetary, financial, or resource implications does not determine whether a decision is core policy. Further, the fact that the word \u201cpolicy\u201d is found in a written document, or that a plan is labelled as \u201cpolicy\u201d may be misleading and is certainly not determinative of the question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat is a \u201cduty of care\u201d?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
a duty of care,
a breach of that duty,
the cause, and
any damages.
A duty of care means the other person or organization was required to do, or avoid doing, something that could likely cause harm.<\/p>Nelson (City) v. Marchi<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n