News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

TheGrimSweeper said:
If this is allow could we not see major lawsuits against Metrolinx for the massive years long disruption to business at Yonge and Eglinton? Or now for the Ontario line?
Click to expand...
Have we seen "major lawsuits" against the Crosstown LRT's disruption to business during its ongoing construction?
 
I can't imagine the loss of business due to road design comes anywhere near to touching the monetary impact of car collisions on the road, be it property damage or personal injury, and whether you're in a car, on a bike, or on foot. Between 2019-2023 there were 294,302 collisions in Toronto involving at least 1 automobile, and that 5 year total is low because of the effect Covid had on travel. 2014-2019 saw 366,663 car collisions.

In 2023 alone there were 66,863, and with 1388 involving at least one pedestrian, and to bring it back to cycling 1063 collisions involving at least one cyclist and one car. That's a lot of people who've potentially had to repair or replace a car or bike, seek medical care, take time off work, or deal with lasting pain or trauma as result of a crash. A study released in 2024 stated that pedestrian and cyclist injuries are "severely underrepresented by police data", and found more than 30,000 ER visits for cyclist injuries between 2016-2021 -- TPS data only captured 2,362.

Of those 66k collisions, 46.5k are listed as involving property damage, so even if you assume it's just to one vehicle per crash and cap it at the minimum $2k threshold for reporting, that's a value of $93,000,000 in one year.

If a city could be sued successfully for their road design because of loss of business (money), how that wouldn't make a city far more risk adverse would be surprising. If that happened, wouldn't that just spur cities to enact slower speeds and change infrastructure to minimize their risk exposure?
 
Northern Light said:
I think what the rest of us are saying, some of whom are lawyers is that we don't see any precedent for the action. We're saying that if you want to suggest that the plaintiffs may have an actionable claim, you need to show why.
Click to expand...
I understand you don't see any precedent, but it's also unusual for a group of that many businesses to get together and sue these parties. The claims speak for themselves and whether they have any merit will be determined by a judge. You seem to claim it as a fact that they do not. I am not so sure.

Northern Light said:
You seem to feel that a judge is entitled to be arbitrary and whimsical here.
Click to expand...
Not true.

Northern Light said:
You need to show legal cause, and "I don't like the outcome of lawful public policy" is not such a cause.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of the claim does not define the claim. No where is the plaintiff saying "I don't like the outcome of lawful public policy".

Northern Light said:
The City did not physically injure anyone's property, they did not poison any business owner, employee or their customer, they did not alter the right of that business to exist or be open, alter how its run, or take any other action outside of the scope of doing what they are legally allowed to do which is alter their property, the roadway, which they did.
Click to expand...
Sure, and the plaintiffs felt aggrieved, got together, hired a litigation attorney, sought advice and counsel as to their rights and this is the result. The plaintiff's attorney clearly has a different opinion than you. What I am suggesting is the court may also have a different opinion from you.


Northern Light said:
There is no legal obligation to maintain a certain speed of traffic on the road, if there was the City would be sued into oblivion since most roads, altered or otherwise run slower than they did 10 or 20 yeas ago.
Click to expand...
Interesting take, but not sure how that is relevant here.

Anyway, I don't see much point in continuing a back & forth. You believe it is a slam dunk with absolutely zero merit. My experience with litigation tells me I am not so sure.

I stand by my previous post where I see the potential risk that if this case goes forward it could potentially cause harm to the city beyond this case.
 
Midtown Hank said:
I understand you don't see any precedent, but it's also unusual for a group of that many businesses to get together and sue these parties. The claims speak for themselves and whether they have any merit will be determined by a judge. You seem to claim it as a fact that they do not. I am not so sure.
Click to expand...

People file completely frivolous lawsuits all the time, for many reasons.

The claim would speak for itself. I don't think anybody here has seen it. I would love to see what law they are pointing to in order to substantiate their claims, because from all I know, installing these bike lanes was completely within the city's lawful powers (which is why the province needed new legislation to stop them from doing it and reverse their action). They clearly sent the Claim to various media outlets as part of their publicity play (one of the most common reasons to file a completely frivolous lawsuit, especially against the government) but for some reason nobody has published it publicly.
 
You have to create an account. It just has the lawyer's name, Matthew Smith. There are a few Matthew Smiths practicing law in Toronto, but I'm guessing it's this guy, probably working pro bono.

www.millerthomson.com

Matthew G. Smith | Miller Thomson

Matthew engages in a broad and energetic commercial litigation practice, representing a diverse clientele across various industries, before all levels of court in Ontario. Matthew handles cases involving shareholder oppression, breach of contract, fraud, debt-recovery, receiverships...
www.millerthomson.com www.millerthomson.com

For lawsuit searches:

My Ontario Account

www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca www.justiceservices.jus.gov.on.ca
 
The pre-spring Cycling package got a minor, non-issue tweak at I&E:

1740680485876.png
 
7 point gap. JEEEZ. wonder if this pumps the brakes on them moving forward with the law
 
I see little chance of Hogarth's loss putting the brakes on anything. Ontario is a sea of blue, once again. With no real change in the Tory majority. They will continue to rule unchecked by our increasingly poor semblance of a democratic system, and Ford will continue to target Toronto as a site of special attention and scorn, to the delight of his primarily suburban and rural supporters.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top