2015 QCCQ 10027, 2015 QCCQ 10027

Landmeyer c. Montreal (Ville de) 2015 QCCQ 10027 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-141935-140 DATE: October 13, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CATHERINE LANDMEYER […] Laval, Quebec, […] PLAINTIFF v.

VILLE DE MONTREAL Bureau du greffe 275 rue Notre Dame est Montréal, Québec, H2Y 1C6 DEFENDANT JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims $ 7 000 for bodily injuries resulting from a fall on April 4, 2013 on 13 th avenue i n Rosemont. She alleges the City of Montreal is responsible for the poor condition of the sidewalk on which she fell. [ 2 ] The Plaintiff was not present at the hearing and her proof was declared closed.

The City was nevertheless asked to present the elements it had in its file concerning the condition of the sidewalk at the time of the event. [ 3 ] Jacob Germain, a City foreman, was advised of the claim made in August 2013.

He inspected the sidewalk and took pictures in October. [ 4 ] A key allegation of the Plaintiff’s case is that the sidewalk not only had an opening between two sections but that metal hooks protruded from this gap. [ 5 ] While the mere fact of a gap between two sections of the sidewalk would not constitute what the jurisprudence refers to as a “trap”, ( “piège” ) the presence of metal hooks, presumably damaged pieces of rebar or wire mesh, could be considered a situation of “trap”, depending on the circumstances. [ 6 ] Neither the photographs submitted in the Plaintiff’s case nor those taken by the City show the presence of any unusual element such as pieces of metal.

What is seen is simply an obvious crack in a sidewalk a few inches deep at most, a condition which is quite commonly observed in the City of Montreal. [ 7 ] There was no condition for which the City could be found liable, there was simply an obvious deficiency in need of correction but not something that would constitute an unforeseen hazard for a pedestrian. [ 8 ] Finally the Plaintiff did not present any evidence of the extent of her alleged injury. In light of these considerations, the Plaintiff has not established fault, damages and a causal relationship between the two. Therefore the action cannot succeed.

For THESE REASONS, the court:

dismisses the Plaintiff’s demand; CondemnS the Plaintiff to pay the judicial disbursement of $206 to the City of the Montreal; __________________________________ David L. Cameron, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 13, 2015