The lawsuit over Richmond Hill’s fatal daycare crash raises questions about both driver error and the design of the childcare centre. But there is another question worth asking: Why have we built communities where even a routine trip to pick up a grandchild often requires getting behind the wheel?

By Editorial Board

The family of Liam Riazati, the 17-month-old boy killed when an SUV crashed into a Richmond Hill daycare last September, is suing the driver, the daycare operators and the owners of the property for at least $4 million.

According to the Toronto Star, the lawsuit alleges failures on two fronts.

It claims the driver, 70-year-old Vinay Kumar Gupta, should not have been operating the vehicle and failed to drive with reasonable care. It also alleges that First Roots Early Education Academy and the property owners should have recognized the danger created by large daycare windows facing directly onto a parking lot, yet allowed vehicles to park in front of them without adequate structural protection or a safe pickup policy.

Those allegations have not been tested in civil court.

Gupta has, however, pleaded guilty to dangerous operation causing death and two counts of dangerous operation causing bodily harm. An accident reconstruction concluded that the collision was caused by operator error.

That establishes responsibility for the immediate cause of the crash.

But some of the other details reported in the case should make us think more broadly about what happened.

An ordinary family errand

Gupta had driven to the daycare shortly before 3 p.m. to pick up his two grandchildren.

A good transportation system should identify people who cannot drive safely. A good city should also make it possible for them to stop driving.

The SUV was new to him. According to the agreed statement of facts, he was using it that day because it had the car seats for his grandchildren, and he may not have been fully familiar with all of its functions.

While pulling into a parking spot, he pressed the accelerator instead of the brake.

None of that excuses what happened.

But there is something important in this otherwise ordinary sequence of events: a grandfather was driving to pick up his grandchildren from daycare.

It is difficult to imagine a more routine local trip.

And that raises a question considerably larger than this particular driver:

Why have we built a city where someone in their 70s may have no practical way to make such a simple family trip except by driving?

This is not an argument that people should stop driving when they turn 70. Many people remain perfectly capable drivers well beyond that age.

There is a legitimate discussion to be had about how we determine whether someone can continue to drive safely as they get older. More frequent or rigorous testing might identify some drivers who should no longer be behind the wheel.

But that immediately leads to another question we rarely ask:

The goal is not to eliminate the car. The goal is to eliminate the requirement to use one.

What happens when someone can no longer drive?

In a community where getting to groceries, medical appointments, childcare and family members is difficult without a car, losing the ability to drive can mean losing much of your independence.

A good transportation system should identify people who cannot drive safely. A good city should also make it possible for them to stop driving.

The building matters too

The lawsuit raises a second issue that is just as important.

This was not simply a vehicle losing control somewhere on a road.

The daycare had large windows facing a parking area where vehicles could pull up directly in front of rooms occupied by children.

The lawsuit alleges that the daycare and property owners should have recognized that risk and installed bollards or other protection. It also alleges that the daycare lacked an adequate policy to separate vehicle movements from the pickup of children.

Again, those allegations remain to be proven.

But the underlying design question does not depend on the outcome of the lawsuit.

Why should a vehicle be able to travel directly from a parking space toward a daycare classroom in the first place?

Good design assumes that human beings will occasionally make mistakes. Someone will press the wrong pedal. Someone will misjudge a turn. Someone will lose control.

The purpose of design is not to pretend those errors can be eliminated. It is to prevent an ordinary human mistake from becoming catastrophic.

Ontario’s answer: put something between the car and the child

The province has responded directly to that danger.

Ontario has created the $20-million Liam Riazati Memorial Fund to help eligible community-based childcare centres install concrete barriers protecting buildings and outdoor play areas from vehicles. The program is voluntary and currently funds concrete barriers specifically, rather than alternatives such as steel bollards, raised curbs or impact-resistant planters.

Ontario has also introduced new rules requiring motor-vehicle impact protection at childcare centres licensed from January 2027 onward, unless a professional engineer determines that the site’s design makes such barriers unnecessary.

These are sensible responses to an obvious danger.

If cars can be driven toward a classroom, there should be something strong enough to stop them.

But that should be the beginning of the safety discussion, not the end.

A concrete barrier accepts the basic arrangement as inevitable: people will drive to the daycare, vehicles will travel immediately beside the building, and parking spaces may face places occupied by children. Our job is then to put something sufficiently strong between the car and the child.

There is another possibility.

We could also question the arrangement itself.

Why are cars the default?

Many childcare facilities operate in commercial plazas and other locations designed primarily around automobile access. Ontario itself notes that community childcare programs can operate in retail settings, places of worship and other standalone buildings.

That flexibility is valuable. We need childcare spaces wherever they can reasonably be provided.

But fitting childcare into car-oriented properties also requires us to think much more carefully about how children, pedestrians and vehicles interact.

Parking should not point directly toward classrooms or playgrounds. Walking routes from the sidewalk should not be an afterthought. Pickup areas should separate children from moving vehicles.

And beyond the property line, we should make it easier for at least some families and employees to arrive without a car at all.

That means childcare closer to where people live, continuous sidewalks, safer crossings and local transit useful enough for short everyday trips.

Not every grandparent will walk to daycare. Not every parent will take transit. In Richmond Hill, driving will remain an important transportation option for a long time.

The goal is not to eliminate the car.

The goal is to eliminate the requirement to use one.

The question the lawsuit cannot answer

The courts will determine what legal responsibility belongs to the driver, daycare operators and property owners.

Those are important questions, particularly for a family that suffered an unimaginable loss.

But there is a broader responsibility that will never be decided in that courtroom.

We have spent decades building communities where remaining independent often means remaining able to drive. At the same time, we have built everyday destinations, including places caring for very young children, around parking lots and constant vehicle movement.

Bollards can make those environments safer, and where the risk exists, we should install them.

But the better long-term question is not only how to stop a vehicle before it reaches a daycare window.

It is why so many ordinary trips, including a grandfather picking up his grandchildren, need to begin with a car at all.