The general aspect of the cities essentially creating a pedestrian hazard to clear a path for cars is pretty interesting case law. Especially as we theoretically move towards a less car centric society.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the judgement but I do feel logistically speaking the person clearing the side walks would have a lot easier time clearing a lot of those spots.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Supreme Court judge accepted the city’s claim that the entire snow removal process was covered by core policy immunity — a decision overturned by the B.C.

The city appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada — which sided with Marchi, coming up with a legal test for judges to figure out what counts as a core policy, and what could be considered the kind of “operational implementation” that might be subject to a negligence claim.

's top court decided against a lawsuit filed by a Burnaby man who claimed damages against a couple whom he alleged had done a poor job of cleaning the sidewalk in front of their home, where he fell on black ice.

But as the judge who heard the case in the lower court pointed out, finding homeowners liable for injuries suffered because they did their civic duty the wrong way would mean “property owners would have an incentive not to make any efforts to comply with snow removal bylaws.”

The so-called neighbour principle was established in 1932 by the British House of Lords in a case involving a decomposed snail at the bottom of a bottle of ginger beer and a very surprised and unhappy customer.

“The snow and ice accumulating on public sidewalks and the potholes on the street in front of the house are the legal responsibility of the municipality, not the adjacent property owner.”

The original article contains 833 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

Am I understanding correctly that contrary to popular belief, sidewalk snow clearing is the municipality’s responsibility?