Final comment from Jennifer Stirton on the new Ontario Municipal Maintenance Standards:
7. Inspection for Sidewalk Discontinuity
The MMS now require annual inspections of sidewalks to check for surface discontinuities. There was no previous annual inspection requirement. In addition, municipalities are now required to treat sidewalk surface discontinuities that exceed two centimetres within 14 days after becoming aware of the fact. The constructive knowledge provision discussed above will also apply. Treating a surface discontinuity on a sidewalk involves taking reasonable measures to protect users of the sidewalk from it, including permanent or temporary repairs, alerting users’ attention to it or preventing access to the area of discontinuity.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label 2010 MMS Changes. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label 2010 MMS Changes. Tampilkan semua postingan
Kamis, 15 April 2010
Selasa, 13 April 2010
Amendments to MMS
More from Jennifer Stirton on the new Municipal Maintenance Standards:
6. Expanded Sign Inspections
The MMS previously required road sign repairs where signs were illegible, improperly oriented or missing. There is now an additional requirement to repair road signs that are obscured. There is also a new requirement to conduct annual inspections of road signs to ensure that they meet the retro-reflectivity requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual.
6. Expanded Sign Inspections
The MMS previously required road sign repairs where signs were illegible, improperly oriented or missing. There is now an additional requirement to repair road signs that are obscured. There is also a new requirement to conduct annual inspections of road signs to ensure that they meet the retro-reflectivity requirements of the Ontario Traffic Manual.
Kamis, 08 April 2010
Amendments to MMS
More comments on the new Minimum Maintenance Standards, by Jennifer Stirton.
4. Slush Included in Snow Accumulation
The MMS have also been criticized for failing to address slushy road conditions.[1] The MMS now provide that snow accumulation on a road includes new fallen snow, wind-blown snow and slush. Snow clearing standards are triggered when snow accumulation reaches a prescribed depth.
[1] See Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid, [2008] O.J. No. 372 at paras. 94-97 (S.C.J.). Note that although it was argued by counsel, the trial judge did not agree that the failure to address slush in the MMS was a gap in the regulation.
5. Annual Inspection of Luminaires
The MMS now provide for annual inspections of all luminaires to ensure that they are functioning. There was no previous inspection requirement.
4. Slush Included in Snow Accumulation
The MMS have also been criticized for failing to address slushy road conditions.[1] The MMS now provide that snow accumulation on a road includes new fallen snow, wind-blown snow and slush. Snow clearing standards are triggered when snow accumulation reaches a prescribed depth.
[1] See Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid, [2008] O.J. No. 372 at paras. 94-97 (S.C.J.). Note that although it was argued by counsel, the trial judge did not agree that the failure to address slush in the MMS was a gap in the regulation.
5. Annual Inspection of Luminaires
The MMS now provide for annual inspections of all luminaires to ensure that they are functioning. There was no previous inspection requirement.
Selasa, 06 April 2010
Amendments to MMS
More commentary on the recent amendments to the MMS, by Jennifer Stirton.
3. Additional Winter Patrolling Requirements
One of the criticisms of the MMS was that the patrolling requirements were inadequate to respond to winter road conditions.[1] The MMS now provide that during the winter maintenance season, municipalities must conduct the routine patrols that were previously required but must also patrol highways that are representative of its highways, as necessary, for snow and ice conditions. The standard also allows patrolling to be done by patrollers or by winter maintenance operators. As neither “representative” nor “as necessary” are defined terms and, we expect to see claims challenging municipal decisions about representative highways and necessary patrol frequencies.
[1] See Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid, [2008] O.J. No. 372 at paras. 98-103 (S.C.J.).
3. Additional Winter Patrolling Requirements
One of the criticisms of the MMS was that the patrolling requirements were inadequate to respond to winter road conditions.[1] The MMS now provide that during the winter maintenance season, municipalities must conduct the routine patrols that were previously required but must also patrol highways that are representative of its highways, as necessary, for snow and ice conditions. The standard also allows patrolling to be done by patrollers or by winter maintenance operators. As neither “representative” nor “as necessary” are defined terms and, we expect to see claims challenging municipal decisions about representative highways and necessary patrol frequencies.
[1] See Thornhill (Litigation Guardian of) v. Shadid, [2008] O.J. No. 372 at paras. 98-103 (S.C.J.).
Kamis, 01 April 2010
Amendments to MMS
More commentary on the recent amendments to the MMS, by Jennifer Stirton.
2. Application of MMS Not Restricted to Motor Vehicles
The MMS previously provided that they applied only in respect of motor vehicles using highways. This provision has been repealed, which suggests that the MMS now apply to pedestrians and bicycles using highways. This may be a response to recent case law which held that where roads are kept in a reasonable state of repair for vehicular traffic, which can include MMS compliance, a municipality may not be liable to pedestrians injured while walking on the road surface. Holmes v. Kingston (City), [2009] O.J. No. 1838 (S.C.J.).
2. Application of MMS Not Restricted to Motor Vehicles
The MMS previously provided that they applied only in respect of motor vehicles using highways. This provision has been repealed, which suggests that the MMS now apply to pedestrians and bicycles using highways. This may be a response to recent case law which held that where roads are kept in a reasonable state of repair for vehicular traffic, which can include MMS compliance, a municipality may not be liable to pedestrians injured while walking on the road surface. Holmes v. Kingston (City), [2009] O.J. No. 1838 (S.C.J.).
Rabu, 31 Maret 2010
Amendments to the Municipal Minimum Maintenance Standards
The Minimum Maintenance Standards under the Municipal Act, 2001 were amended by Ontario Regulation 23/10, which came into effect on February 18, 2010. Several of the amendments are significant and will require municipalities to review their maintenance practices to ensure that the standards are met.
Over the next several blog entries, we will provide comments on the most significant changes to the Minimum Maintenance Standards. These comments were authored by Jennifer Stirton of our office.
Here is the first:
1. Constructive Knowledge of Facts
Many maintenance requirements in the MMS apply when a municipality becomes aware of a particular fact, such as a minimum snow accumulation, icy road conditions or a missing road sign. The MMS now provide that a municipality is deemed to be aware of a fact if the circumstances are such that the municipality ought reasonably to be aware of the fact.
Over the next several blog entries, we will provide comments on the most significant changes to the Minimum Maintenance Standards. These comments were authored by Jennifer Stirton of our office.
Here is the first:
1. Constructive Knowledge of Facts
Many maintenance requirements in the MMS apply when a municipality becomes aware of a particular fact, such as a minimum snow accumulation, icy road conditions or a missing road sign. The MMS now provide that a municipality is deemed to be aware of a fact if the circumstances are such that the municipality ought reasonably to be aware of the fact.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)