Canada: Stop Here, Not There: Court Of Appeal Comes To Seemingly Different Conclusions In Two Strikingly Similar Roadway Repair Cases

Two recent decisions from separate panels of the Ontario Court of Appeal, released the same day, considered similar fact patterns involving allegations of roadway disrepair and intersections with faded or partially removed stop lines. The motor vehicle accidents in both Smith v. Safranyos, 2018 ONCA 760 (Smith) and Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762 (Chiocchio), occurred when a vehicle stopped at a stop sign, but then did not stop closer to the intersection with a clear view of oncoming traffic, only to collide with an oncoming vehicle. Both actions involved a driver's obligations under s. 136(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) to stop their vehicle "immediately before entering the intersection."

Both panels held that a road authority may be found liable for roadway non-repair for failing to paint or maintain a stop line even where a driver negligently failed to comply with s. 136(1) of the HTA. However, in one case the Court absolved the road authority and in the other the liability finding was upheld. The reasoning of the Court calls for further scrutiny and a deeper analysis of the reasonable driver and causation analysis in roadway disrepair cases involving negligent drivers.

A Municipality's Roadway Obligations and the Reasonable Driver

Under section 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25,road authorities owe a duty of care to maintain their highways in a reasonable state of repair taking into account the character and location of the highway. In both Chiocchio and Smith, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed its four-step test set out in its 2014 decision in Fordham v. Dutton Dunwich 2014 ONCA 891, [2014] (Fordham) for determining liability under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001:

  1. Non-repair: The plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that the municipality failed to keep the road in question in a reasonable state of repair;
  2. Causation: The plaintiff must prove the "non-repair" caused the accident;
  3. Statutory Defences: Proof of "non-repair" and causation establish a prima facie case of liability against a municipality, which then has the onus of establishing that at least one of the three defences found in s. 44(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001 applies; and
  4. Contributory Negligence: A municipality that cannot establish any of the three defences in s. 44(3) will be found liable. The municipality can, however, show that the plaintiff's conduct caused or contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.

However, a road authority owes no duty to accommodate negligent drivers, and the duty under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2011, is to be viewed through the lens of the ordinary and reasonable driver who drives without negligence, or, in accordance with the law. The "ordinary reasonable driver" is not a perfect driver, but one that makes mistakes. As had been explained previously in Deering v. Scugog (Township), 2010 ONSC 5502, the ordinary reasonable driver is "of average intelligence, pays attention, uses caution when conditions warrant, but is human and sometimes makes mistakes."

Both Smith and Chiocchio involved drivers who, each panel found, were negligent after failing to stop closer to an intersection in order to have a clear view of traffic, after having stopped initially at a stop sign. Yet, in Chiocco the road authority was absolved of liability, but in Smith was not.

Smith v. Safranyos, 2018 ONCA 760

In Smith, the defendant driver stopped at a stop sign some ways back from intersection, before moving into the intersection without stopping again, and struck an oncoming vehicle (whose driver was speeding and had consumed alcohol). The plaintiffs were the children and their family members in the vehicle that pulled out into oncoming traffic. The intersection had a stop sign, but the roadway's stop line was faded and had been partially removed during an earlier "shave and pave" operation and not repainted. The location of a metal guardrail and elevation changes near the intersection meant that there was a partial blind spot where oncoming vehicles were unable to see the turning vehicles until they were 35 meters from the intersection and turning vehicles had a corresponding partially obscured sight line. The trial judge found that the road authority did not meet the reasonable state of repair because of the cumulative effect of the faded stop line, the change in elevation, and the obscured sightline for vehicles approaching the intersection. Although the driver clearly contravened s. 136 of the HTA, the trial judge found that the breaches were a contributing cause of the accident, and apportioned 25 per cent liability to the road authority, along with 50 per cent to the driver of the plaintiffs' vehicle, and 25 per cent to the other driver. 

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision regarding the road authority, emphasizing that a non-repair action can succeed even where a negligent driver was the immediate cause of the accident so long as road conditions that would imperil ordinary drivers constitute a "but for" cause of the accident and posed an unreasonable safety risk to drivers who exercised reasonable care. Like the panel in Chiocchio, it was found that a municipality cannot avoid liability by relying on s. 136 of the HTA if the condition of the stop signs and road markings in whole or in part rendered the intersection unsafe for reasonable drivers. The Court of Appeal also noted that the trial judge's decision was not a declaration that a painted stop line is always required, but rather was a fact-specific assessment of the evidence.

Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762

Given the articulation and approach to the reasonable ordinary driver by the panel in Smith, one would have expected a similar upholding of the trial judge's finding in Chiocchio that the road authority was liable for their faded stop line. Facts are, of course, case specific, which may explain to some degree the different outcome in these cases.

In Chiocchio, the accident occurred at a rural intersection with two-lane roads in both directions. One of the intersections had a stop sign, while the posted speed on the other, without a stop sign, was 80 km/h. The defendant driver stopped at the stop sign that was at most 12.3 metres back from the entrance to the intersection, but did not stop again at the faded stop line that was at most 2.94 metres back from the intersection. It was conceded at trial that the defendant driver was negligent in entering the intersection when it was unsafe to do so. He was found 50 per cent liable. The plaintiff, a passenger in the oncoming vehicle, was rendered a quadriplegic. 

The trial judge found the road authority 50 per cent liable for failing to repaint the faded stop line that was no longer effective in guiding drivers as to where to stop. Had the defendant driver stopped at the faded stop line, which was accepted to be his usual practice, he would have been able to see the oncoming vehicle, and the accident would not have occurred.

The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's findings, noting that a road authority's "duty does not extend to remedying conditions that pose a risk of harm only because of negligent driving." The trial judge erred in applying the ordinary reasonable driver standard in considering whether such a driver would know the "safe stopping distance" in relation to oncoming traffic. Rather, the question that was to be asked was whether, in the absence of a stop line, the intersection posed an unreasonable risk of harm for ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care who sometimes make mistakes.

According to the Court of Appeal, the ordinary reasonable driver, despite stopping at a stop sign, would recognize a need to come closer to an intersection and stop again to have a clear view of oncoming traffic. Put another way, the Court of Appeal concluded that a driver who stops in a position where their view of oncoming traffic is obscured and does not stop again before entering the intersection falls well below the standard of an ordinary driver. The obligation of the reasonable driver, even if they did not meet their obligation of s. 136 of the HTA to stop immediately before entering the intersection, was to stop at a point close enough to the intersection to at least have sightlines in both directions.

And so the faded stop line at the intersection did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to ordinary reasonable drivers.

Reconciling Chiocchio and Smith

The decisions are hard to square.

While both panels agreed that the failure of a driver to abide by s. 136 of the HTA would not immunize a road authority from a finding of liability, it is not clear that a consistent approach to the reasonable driver and causation is being applied.

In Smith, the Court rejected the argument that it was "always negligent to fail to stop immediately before entering an intersection marked with a stop sign, [and therefore] only negligent drivers are put at risk by the absence of a painted stop line." According to the panel, this argument was "too simplistic" and would immunize road authorities from liability, regardless of the character or quality of its stop signs or markings. Thus, the panel seems to have made room for a finding of liability against a road authority in cases involving negligent drivers.

However, the reasoning of the panel in Chiocchio appears to be the opposite. The panel found that the trial judge erred in finding the test for non-repair to be whether an ordinary reasonable driver could be expected to know the exact length of the safe stopping distance, and concluded that a reasonable driver would bring their vehicles to a stop before entering an intersection within a zone in which they had sightlines in both directions. According to the panel, a reasonable (i.e. non-negligent driver) "would know to come closer to the intersection before stopping initially or before stopping again, in order to have a clear view of traffic from both directions."  By failing to do so, the cause of the accident was not the lack of a painted stop line, but the conduct of the driver in failing to stop in a position affording clear sight lines before entering an intersection.

In addressing the decision in Smith, the panel in Chiocchio cautioned that the decisions are dependent on the unique facts of each case. However, even if one accepts that there were changes in the gradient and a partially obstructed sightline in the intersection at issue in Smith, the evidence still involved a negligent driver who failed to stop in a position affording clear sight lines before entering an intersection. The difference in Smith appears to be that the panel found this to be but one cause of the resulting accident, whereas in Chiocchio is was found to be the cause of the accident. However, the panel in Smith accepted the trial judge's finding (based on agreed expert evidence), that drivers approaching the intersection would have seen the approaching vehicle when they were five metres back from the intersection. Applying the same reasoning as in Chiocchio, in Smith the cause of the accident could be attributed to the driver's failure to stop, rather than the lack of a painting stop line.  

Thus, there remains some tension between these decisions and the Court of Appeal's view of causation and the standard of maintenance for the reasonable driver in cases of road disrepair.

Despite this tension, both panels found that in a roadway repair claims with respect to stop lines, the question remains whether, in the absence of a clearly painted stop line, the intersection posed an unreasonable risk of harm for ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care who sometimes make mistakes. Furthermore, painted stop lines are not always required where an intersection has obscured sightlines, but an assessment of all of the potential issues, such as gradient changes, should be considered to determine whether the cumulative effect of these factors is that the intersection is in a state of "non-repair".

These cases serve as a reminder that all roadway repair cases must be examined in light of their specific facts, with specific consideration and caution given to what would be expected of a "reasonable" driver in those particular circumstances.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions