2015 QCCQ 10496, 2015 QCCQ 10496

Golovanov c. Kirkland (Town of) 2015 QCCQ 10496 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-142213-141 DATE: October 22, 2015 _________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. _________________________________________________________________ DIMITRI GOLOVANOV Plaintiff v.

TOWN OF KIRKLAND Defendant _________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT _________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr Dimitri Golovanov, a resident of […] in Kirkland sues the Town of Kirkland (“Kirkland”) for damages in the amount of $789.00 representing the estimated cost of repairs to the front bumper of his car. [ 2 ] He alleges that on January 8, 2014, the car was damaged because of negligence of persons responsible for road de-icing and poor road surface re-pavement for which the plaintiff pays his taxes. [ 3 ] The value of the repairs is established by an estimate which appears to be a reasonable amount and the City does not contest this. [ 4 ] The City raises however article 585 (7) of the Cities and Towns Act [1] which states that:: 585. (7) [. . .] no municipality may be held liable for damage resulting from an accident, [. . .] unless the claimant establishes that the said accident was caused by the negligence or fault of the said municipality, [. . .] [ 5 ] Mr Golovanov asserts in reply to this Defence that the circumstances truly indicate that the City was at fault in that it did not spread salt and abrasive on the glare ice that had developed on Place Colbert in the vicinity of his house, that day. [ 6 ] Mr Golovanov’s testimony and the photos clearly demonstrate that there was indeed no abrasive placed on the ice and, according to Mr Golovanov’s testimony, he applied the brakes and attempted to turn into his driveway at a very low speed but the car slid into the adjacent snow bank.

The tires could simply not grip on the icy surface. [ 7 ] The representative of Kirkland, its Director of Public Works, Mr Martin Cuerrier explained that, according to Kirkland’s priorities, a terciary road such as Place Colbert in a residential area, would not receive abrasives and salt on a routine basis but only exceptionally if the conditions should become extreme such as that which can arise when there is an ice storm.

He used the expression “patinoire”. [ 8 ] In the Court’s view, this is an admission that in the present case something should have been done to spread abrasives because the surface was indeed extremely slippery with glare ice as can be seen readily from the photographs and confirmed by Mr Golovanov’s testimony. [ 9 ] Mr Golovanov provided photographs of another street approximately two kilometres away, rue Benoît, where one can clearly see abrasives and salt spread on the road. [ 10 ] Mr Golovanov testified that his photographs were taken the same day as the photographs of Place Colbert, the morning after the event. [ 11 ] There were also some questions as to whether part of Place Colbert had been sanded or salted but the proof on this was not clear; It may have been that materials spread on St-Charles boulevard found their way onto the beginning of Place Colbert where it crosses St-Charles. [ 12 ] The Court would not normally have second guessed the City’s application of its policies but, in this case, the clear admission of the City’s representative established that it would have spread abrasive in front of Mr Colbert’s house if it had considered that this was an extreme situation comparable to an ice storm.

[ 13 ] In the Court’s view, the situation Mr Golovanov encountered on January 8, 2014 was no less a dangerous situation than the generation of glare ice through freezing rain. According to its policy, the City should have acted. [ 14 ] Therefore the Court comes to the conclusion that Mr Golovanov has established the City’s fault and has proved the damages that were caused as a result of that fault. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the amount of $ 789.00 with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided at

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec calculated from February 7, 2014; CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s judicial disbursement of $ 79.25. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q Date of hearing: September 28, 2015