When Snow Becomes a Legal Risk: What Richmond Hill Can Learn from a Supreme Court Ruling
On winter mornings in Richmond Hill, the danger often isn’t the road—it’s the sidewalk.
After snowfalls and freezing rain, many sidewalks remain unploughed or only partially cleared. Meltwater refreezes overnight. Snowbanks pile up at intersections. Pedestrians—seniors, parents with strollers, students, transit users—are left to navigate black ice, narrowed paths, or are forced onto the roadway itself.
For years, this has been treated as an inconvenience. Increasingly, it may be something else: a liability.
A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision involving a British Columbia municipality sends a clear signal to cities across the country, including Richmond Hill: failure to properly clear pedestrian routes can expose municipalities to negligence claims.
The Supreme Court’s Message: Cities Owe Pedestrians a Duty of Care
In Nelson (City) v. Marchi (2021), the Supreme Court considered the case of a pedestrian injured after a city snowplough created a continuous snowbank between parked cars and the sidewalk. The city had ploughed the roadway but failed to ensure safe pedestrian access to the sidewalk.
The City of Nelson argued it was immune from liability because its snow-clearing choices were “policy decisions.” The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Court drew a critical distinction:
- High-level policy decisions—such as how much money to budget for winter maintenance—may be immune from lawsuits.
- Operational decisions, including how snow is actually cleared on streets, sidewalks, and intersections, are not.
Snow removal, the Court ruled, is not automatically protected by policy immunity. When cities implement winter maintenance in a way that creates foreseeable hazards for pedestrians, they can owe a duty of care to residents.
The ruling did not say cities must keep every surface perfectly clear. But it did make something explicit: municipalities cannot ignore pedestrian safety once snow-clearing operations begin.
Why This Matters for Richmond Hill
Richmond Hill, like many car-oriented suburbs, prioritizes keeping traffic moving. Roads are often ploughed quickly, while sidewalks lag behind—or are left untouched for days.
The result is predictable:
- Snow pushed to curb edges blocks crosswalks.
- Melted snow refreezes into black ice on shaded sidewalks.
- Pedestrians detour into live traffic lanes to avoid impassable paths.
Under the reasoning in Nelson v. Marchi, these are not abstract policy choices. They are operational outcomes—the direct result of how winter maintenance is carried out on the ground.
If a pedestrian is injured after being forced to climb over a snowbank at an intersection, or after slipping on an uncleared sidewalk that the city knew—or should have known—was hazardous, the legal question becomes unavoidable: Did the city act reasonably?
The Supreme Court has made clear that courts are allowed to ask that question.
Sidewalks Are Not Optional Infrastructure
One of the key lessons from the Nelson case is that cities cannot treat pedestrian infrastructure as secondary once snow begins to fall.
Sidewalks are not decorative. They are:
- the primary transportation network for people who do not drive,
- essential for access to transit,
- critical for seniors, children, and people with mobility devices.
When sidewalks are left untreated while roads are cleared, municipalities are not merely favouring one mode of transportation over another—they may be creating foreseeable and preventable risks.
The Supreme Court emphasized foreseeability in Nelson v. Marchi. If it is foreseeable that pedestrians will try to cross a snowbank, or walk on an icy sidewalk because there is no alternative, the city cannot simply shrug and say, “Winter happens.”
A Legal Wake-Up Call
The Nelson ruling does not guarantee that cities will lose lawsuits over winter conditions. But it does remove a long-standing shield: the assumption that snow clearing is always a protected policy choice.
For Richmond Hill, this should be a wake-up call.
Continuing to under-invest in sidewalk clearing, or to treat pedestrian routes as an afterthought, is no longer just a matter of public frustration or accessibility—it carries real legal risk.
The question facing the city is no longer whether it can afford to do more for pedestrian safety in winter. It is whether it can afford not to.
As the Supreme Court has now made clear, when cities clear snow in ways that prioritize vehicles while leaving pedestrians exposed to danger, they may be held responsible for the consequences.