Yes
Last Updated: August 23 2026
When a pothole or damaged sidewalk causes an injury in Ontario, who is legally responsible and how do I sue the municipality?
SFG Paralegal Services LLP can help you assess municipal liability in Ontario for road hazards like potholes, missing or damaged signs, and sidewalk conditions under section 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, and explain the “reasonable in the circumstances” repair standard and key defences used by cities and towns. If you plan to claim for injuries or vehicle damage, you should also ask about any special notice requirements and timing rules that apply before suing a municipality. For a fast eligibility check and next steps, call (888) 398-0121.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
If a Car Is Damaged By a Pothole, Can the City Be Held Liable?
Generally, When a Poorly Maintained Road Causes Damage or Injuries, a Local Municipality May Be Liable As Laws Require the Municipality to Reasonably Perform Maintenance. Special Rules For Suing Government or Municipalities May Apply.
Note: Please contact SFG Paralegal Services LLP by phone at: (888) 398-0121 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
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 above statutory duty was recently referenced within, and clarified by, the Court of Appeal within the case of Chiocchio v. Hamilton (City), 2018 ONCA 762, wherein it was said:
[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.”
In addition to cases where a municipality may be responsible for incidents involving automobiles due to the failure to adequately maintain a roadway, a municipality may also be responsible for incidents involving a pedestrian; Bellefleur v. London (City), (2002) 33 M.P.L.R. (3d) 252, a cyclist; Danco v. Thunder Bay (City), (2002) 21 M.P.L.R. (3d) 18, or a person upon roller blades; Winter v. London (City of), 2002 CanLII 15580. Generally speaking, municipalities may also be responsible for incidents that involve any reasonably foreseeable user of a 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.
Deeper Information About Repair of Roads...
Here are links to four (4) other webpages:
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.
NOTE: A substantial array of online searches for “lawyers in my vicinity” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicates an urgent requirement for competent legal assistance rather than a particular professional designation. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are governed by the same Law Society that supervises lawyers, and they possess the authority to represent clients in specified litigation concerns. Advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that responsibility. SFG Paralegal Services LLP provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
