Repair of Roads: Municipal Maintenance Duties | Marketing.Legal™
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Repair of Roads:

Municipal Maintenance Duties



Last Updated: August 05 2026

Question: Can the City or local municipality in Ontario be sued if a poorly maintained road caused my accident?

Answer: If you were hurt (or your vehicle was damaged) because a municipality in Ontario did not keep a road in a reasonable state of repair, you may be able to bring a claim for damages, but you still must show the municipality defaulted in its maintenance duty and that the condition created an unreasonable risk to an ordinary, careful road user; the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25 generally sets out the duty to maintain highways and the municipality’s potential liability for damages caused by that default, along with defences if it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know, if it took reasonable steps, or if minimum standards applied and were met, and Ontario courts apply a “reasonableness” standard rather than requiring perfection (for example, the Court of Appeal in Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762).   For help assessing your situation, preserving evidence (photos, repair records, witness info), and understanding whether a municipal maintenance issue fits your facts, Marketing.Legal™ can guide you through Ontario’s claim considerations for road-hazard incidents involving drivers, pedestrians, and other lawful users, so call (800) 551-5751 to discuss next steps.

If a Poorly Maintained Road Causes or Contributes to An Accident, Can the Local Municipality Be Sued?

When a Road Is Poorly Maintained Resulting In Damage or Injuries, the Local Municipality May Be Liable. The Municipality to Take Reasonable Steps When Maintaining Roads. When Suing a Municipality, Special Notice Periods May Apply.


Understanding Municipal Roadway Maintenance Duties Including the Road Surface, Sidewalks, Signs, Trees, and more.

Potholes and other roadway hazards can pose significant risk of injury to persons as well as damage to vehicles, among other things, as property.  While many incidents with roadway hazards result in only relatively minor mishaps, serious damage or even severe injuries can result from the failure to properly maintain roadways including failure to maintain incidentals such as signage per The Queen v. Jennings et al.[1966] S.C.R.  532; guardrails, trees per Swinamer v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R.  445, among other things, that go beyond merely just the roadway surface.

The Law

The legal duty imposed upon the municipality to maintain the roadway is enshrined within section 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.  2001, Chapter 25 where it is stated:


Maintenance

44 (1) The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge.

Liability

(2) A municipality that defaults in complying with subsection (1) is, subject to the Negligence Act, liable for all damages any person sustains because of the default.

Defence

(3) Despite subsection (2), a municipality is not liable for failing to keep a highway or bridge in a reasonable state of repair if,

(a) it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to have known about the state of repair of the highway or bridge;

(b) it took reasonable steps to prevent the default from arising; or

(c) at the time the cause of action arose, minimum standards established under subsection (4) applied to the highway or bridge and to the alleged default and those standards have been met.

Regulations

(4) The Minister of Transportation may make regulations establishing minimum standards of repair for highways and bridges or any class of them.

General or Specific

(5) The minimum standards may be general or specific in their application.

Duties of Repair

The statutory duties imposed upon a municipality were reviewed and summarized by the Court of Appeal in the Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762, case wherein it was stated:


[8]  Section 44 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, requires a municipality to keep highways under its jurisdiction “in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway”.

[9]  In Fordham v. Dutton-Dunwich (Municipality), 2014 ONCA 891 (CanLII), 70 M.V.R.  6, at paras. 28-29, Laskin J.A. described the ordinary reasonable driver standard, the standard of care which governs a municipality’s duty of highway repair.  As described by Laskin J.A., a municipality is required to prevent or remedy conditions on its roads that create an unreasonable risk of harm for ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care.  Ordinary reasonable drivers are not perfect; they make mistakes.  However, a municipality's duty does not extend to remedying conditions that pose a risk of harm only because of negligent driving.

Extent of Duty to Repair

As shown in Chiocchio, the duty imposed upon the municipality is to act with reasonableness rather than to act perfectly and that maintenance of the roadway needs to performed to the extent of preventing or correcting conditions that may expose an ordinary driver, who is presumed as capable of making driving errors, to unreasonable risk; however, the duty as legally imposed upon a municipality without a requirement to prevent or correct conditions that may cause risk to a negligent driver.  This viewpoint that a municipality is obligated to maintain the roads to a standard of reasonableness for use by an ordinary driver, rather than negligent driver was also recently articulated in Smith v. Safranyos, 2018 ONCA 760 whereas it was said:


[31]  “Non-repair” will be established if the plaintiff proves “on a balance of probabilities that the municipality failed to keep the road in question in a reasonable state of repair”: Fordham, at para. 26.  The applicable legal test is, “was the road at the material time sufficiently in repair that those users of the road, exercising ordinary or reasonable care, could use it in safety”: Deering v. Scugog (Township), 2010 ONSC 5502 (CanLII), at para. 100, affirmed 2012 ONCA 386 (CanLII), leave to appeal from C.A.  refused [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 351.  In adopting the Deering standard of care test, Laskin J.A. elaborated in Fordham, at para. 28, that “ordinary reasonable drivers are not perfect drivers; they make mistakes”, but he cautioned, at para. 29, “a municipality’s duty of reasonable repair does not extend to making its roads safer for negligent drivers.”

Further to the possibility that a municipality may be found liable for an incident involving automobiles due to a failure to properly maintain a roadway, a municipality may also be found liable for incidents that involve a pedestrian; Bellefleur v. London (City), (2002) 33 M.P.L.R. (3d) 252, a bicyclist; Danco v. Thunder Bay (City), (2002) 21 M.P.L.R. (3d) 18, or even a person upon roller blades; Winter v. London (City of), 2002 CanLII 15580. Essentially, a municipality owes a duty to all persons, automobile drivers or others, who may be users of the roadway.

Concerns to Consider

The statutorily imposed municipal duties regarding roadway repairs are extensive and often involve legal definitions and interpretations that vary from common vernacular; and accordingly, careful review of the statutory definitions as well as the common law cases embodying judicial interpretations is crucially important when considering litigation against a municipality.

Conclusion

The statutory law, being the Municipal Act, 2001, quite clearly imposes a duty upon municipalities to reasonably maintain roadways.  The common law cases subsequently articulate the standard of measure for the reasonableness required as being sufficient to make the roads safe for the diligent driver rather than the negligent driver.

Get a FREE 1 HOUR CONSULTATION

At
Our Desk Now!
Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through the web form.  Use the web form only for your introduction.   Learn Why?
10

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: Marketing.Legal™

NOTE: Do not send confidential information through this website form.  Use this website form only for making an introduction.
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.202
Hours of Business:

10:30AM - 10:00PM
10:30AM - 10:00PM
10:30AM - 10:00PM
10:30AM - 10:00PM
10:30AM - 05:00PM
11:00AM - 04:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:
Saturday:

By appointment only.  Please call for details.

NOTE: Providing services to the legal community only services provided by Marketing.Legal are unavailable to the general public

Marketing.Legal™ is a 100% Canadian brand, owned and operated incorporated business, with dedicated expert professionals, having decades of qualified experience in Website Development, Search Engine Optimization (SEO), Google Adwords, and Social Media marketing for Lawyers and Paralegals.  Website design for lawyers and paralegal firms, and any other businesses with a genuine vector to the legal profession in Canada.








Sign
Up

Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A