2021 QCCQ 9097, 2021 QCCQ 9097

Cohen c. Ville de Montréal 2021 QCCQ 9097 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-706745-181 DATE: June 10, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE GILLES LAREAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MARLA COHEN Plaintiff v.

VILLE DE MONTRÉAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Marla Cohen (COHEN) claims from the City of Montréal (MTL) the amount of $1 500.00 in damages after she fell on a sidewalk which she alleges was very slippery [ 2 ] MTL argues that it committed no fault as the sidewalk was properly maintained considering the fact that it had snowed both the day before and on the day of the event. [ 3 ] On December 13 th 2016, at around 11:00 a.m., as she was walking on the sidewalk situated on Beaubien Street near Normanville, in the City of Montréal, COHEN slipped and fell.

As a result, she sustained injuries to her lower back and sacral area. [ 4 ] Although she did not seek medical attention, COHEN argues that she had pain while sitting and standing and that her suffering lasted until December 30 th 2016 (16 days).

The pain is now gone and there is no permanent injury. [ 5 ] COHEN suggests that MTL is responsible for her injury as it was « grossly negligent in not ensuring that the sidewalk was properly maintained due to slush and slippery conditions » [1] . [ 6 ] COHEN is claiming the amount of $1 500.00 in compensation for her pain and suffering. [ 7 ] MTL essentially says that it is not responsible for COHEN’s injury. Meteorological reports indicate that it had snowed 17 cm between the 12 th and the 13 th of December 2016 (Exhibit D-1) and that at the time of the event, it was in the process of removing the snow.

MTL’s Formulaire de Chargement de neige Secteur S-1 (Exhibit D-2) indicates that the snow removal on the sidewalk in question was done at 13h45 on December 13 th . [ 8 ] COHEN does not recall if it had snowed the day before nor does she recall if she was wearing winter boots or running shoes on the day of the event. To support her claim, she produces a number of pictures of the sidewalk (pictures which were taken in the summer) and a picture of one her calves.

ANALYSIS [ 9 ] Section 585 (7) of the Cities and Towns Act [2] stipulates the following : 585. [...] ( 7) Notwithstanding any general law or special Act, no municipality may be held liable for damage resulting from an accident, of which any person is the victim, on the sidewalks, streets, roads, walkways or bikeways, by reason of the snow or ice, unless the claimant establishes that the said accident was caused by the negligence or fault of the said municipality, the court having to take into account the weather conditions [ 10 ] Taking into consideration the fact that at the time of the event it had snowed 17 cm, did COHEN establish that her accident was caused by the negligence or fault of MTL? [ 11 ] In Juteau St-Jean c.

Ville de Montréal [3] , Judge Stéphane Davignon reviews the principles set out by case law regarding accidents relating to slippery sidewalks. He writes : [20] Les tribunaux ont maintes fois eu l’occasion de se prononcer sur des cas de chutes survenues sur le trottoir d’une municipalité et au fil des décisions qui en ont découlé, divers principes régissant la responsabilité des villes et des citoyens s’en sont dégagés. Le Tribunal en retient essentiellement ce qui suit :

[ 12 ]

a) Il n’y a pas de présomption de faute à l’encontre d’une ville lorsqu’un citoyen chute sur l’un de ses trottoirs, même sur un trottoir glacé ; [ 13 ]

b) La Ville doit être diligente dans son obligation d’assurer la sécurité des citoyens qui empruntent ses trottoirs, elle doit prendre les mesures raisonnables à cette fin ; [ 14 ]

c) La Ville a une obligation de moyen et non une obligation de résultat relativement à l’entretien des trottoirs et le critère de la personne raisonnablement prudente et diligente s’y applique ; [ 15 ]

d) Un citoyen réclamant doit alléguer et prouver que ses dommages résultent de la faute de la ville reliée à l’entretien du trottoir, tout en étant réaliste et conscient que notre climat est parfois imprévisible et que tout ne peut pas être fait en même temps ; [ 16 ]

e) Une ville dispose d’une grande discrétion dans l’établissement de sa politique de déneigement et d’entretien des rues et trottoirs l’hiver. Par contre, sa responsabilité ne sera pas exclue si elle fait preuve de négligence à cet égard ; [ 17 ]

f) Les citoyens doivent aussi être prudents lorsqu’ils empruntent les trottoirs, chacun étant responsable de ses faits et gestes, surtout lorsqu’il y a un risque évident; [ 18 ]

g) La ville n’est pas l’assureur de ceux qui se servent de ses trottoirs. [ 19 ] Applying those principles to the present case, considering the evidence adduced establishing the fact that it was snowing, that MTL was in the process of removing the snow, that COHEN does not recall if she was wearing boots or running shoes, it becomes rather clear that she did not meet her burden of proving a fault on the part of MTL. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : REJECTS the claim. The whole with costs of 151$. __________________________________ GILLES LAREAU, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 6, 2021