It happened in an instant.

My elderly friend was crossing the street on a bright afternoon, stepping from the painted crosswalk to the sidewalk. The moment his foot hit the edge, he caught on a small but abrupt rise between the asphalt and the concrete. He stumbled, pitched forward, and fell hard—breaking his nose and leaving deep facial bruises.

It wasn’t ice. It wasn’t rain. It was a hidden, vertical lip where two surfaces met—a hazard that many younger, sure-footed pedestrians might brush off, but one that can be devastating for seniors or anyone with mobility issues.

That single step raises an important question: when a crosswalk-to-sidewalk transition turns into a tripping point, what responsibility does a municipality have?

The Municipality’s Duty to Repair

In Ontario, sidewalks are part of the “highway” for the purposes of the Municipal Act, 2001. Section 44^[1] places a duty on municipalities to keep highways in a “state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances.” This doesn’t mean perfection—municipalities aren’t guarantors of absolute safety—but it does mean they must take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.

The law recognizes that municipalities can’t fix hazards they don’t know about. If a defect develops suddenly, they’re liable only if they had actual notice of it or should reasonably have known it was there. They can also defend a claim by showing they took reasonable steps to prevent the hazard or that they met the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways^[2].

What Counts as a Tripping Hazard?

Ontario courts have often dismissed sidewalk height discrepancies under 2 cm as being within reasonable repair standards.

In Cromarty v. Waterloo (City), 2022 ONSC 1322, the plaintiff tripped on a municipal sidewalk where the elevation differential measured between 17.5 and 18.5 millimetres. Applying section 16.1(2.1) of Ontario Regulation 239/02^[3], the court found that a sidewalk discontinuity of two centimetres or less is deemed to be in a state of repair, and dismissed the action on the basis that the City had met the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

But that threshold is not absolute. Factors like pedestrian volume, lighting, visual contrast, and the vulnerability of users can all be relevant.

While the Minimum Maintenance Standards deem certain defects to be “in a state of repair”—such as a sidewalk discontinuity of two centimetres or less—this threshold is not always determinative. Courts will still assess the overall circumstances to determine whether the municipality has met its duty of care. In Morris v. Prince, 2023 ONSC 3922^[4], the municipality had complied with the MMS lighting standard, which permits up to two non-functioning luminaires, yet the court examined broader contextual factors, including the adequacy of overall lighting and pedestrian visibility. The decision underscores that factors such as pedestrian volume, lighting conditions, visual contrast, and the vulnerability of sidewalk users can be relevant in assessing whether a surface is reasonably safe, even where the numerical standard is technically satisfied.

In a busy intersection frequented by elderly pedestrians, people using walkers, or parents pushing strollers, even a modest surface change can pose an unacceptable risk. Add poor visibility or lack of tactile warning strips, and the hazard becomes harder to justify.

For my friend, the hazard wasn’t just theoretical. It was a concrete lip with enough vertical difference to catch a toe, and enough force to send him to the pavement.

The Clock Is Ticking: Notice Requirements

One of the biggest traps for injured pedestrians is the 10-day notice requirement in section 44(10) of the Municipal Act^[5]. If you’re hurt on a municipal sidewalk, you must give written notice to the clerk of the municipality within 10 days, including the date, time, and location of the incident.

Miss that deadline and your claim may be barred—unless you can show both a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the municipality wasn’t prejudiced by it. The courts have accepted excuses such as hospitalization or lack of immediate awareness of the notice rule, but there’s no guarantee. Ten days goes by quickly, especially when you’re recovering from an injury.

The Higher Hurdle: Gross Negligence

If the hazard relates to snow or ice, the law makes things even harder. Section 44(9)^[6] says you can’t recover damages unless you prove gross negligence—a much higher standard than ordinary negligence.

Gross negligence has been described by Ontario courts as “very great negligence,” though it doesn’t require intentional wrongdoing. It usually means that the municipality’s general maintenance policy was unreasonable, or that its response to a specific condition fell far below what was acceptable.

For example, in Crinson v. Toronto^[7], the city was found grossly negligent for leaving a busy sidewalk dangerously icy for over 34 hours after a storm. But if a municipality follows its written snow-clearing schedule, even with minor lapses, it can be difficult to prove gross negligence.

Why the Bar Is Set High

The gross negligence standard reflects a policy decision. Municipalities manage thousands of kilometres of roads and sidewalks. Legislators have decided that holding them liable for every minor imperfection—or every patch of snow—would be impractical and financially unsustainable.

That doesn’t mean they’re above the law. It just means the burden of proof is heavier for certain types of hazards, and the claimant must be ready to meet it.

Building the Case: Evidence Matters

If you’re thinking about suing a municipality for a sidewalk injury, immediate evidence gathering is critical. Over time, defects get repaired, surfaces shift, and memories fade. Strong cases are built on:

• Clear photographs or video of the defect, ideally with a ruler, coin, or other reference for scale.
• Witness statements from anyone who saw the fall or the condition.
• Weather records if snow or ice is in question.
• Municipal maintenance logs or prior complaints about that location.
• Expert reports from engineers or accessibility specialists explaining why the defect posed a serious hazard.

In my friend’s case, a few quick photos taken within a couple of days captured the exact lip that caused the fall. That visual record could be the difference between winning and losing.

The Litigation Reality—and the Value of Mediation

Even with good evidence, these cases are not easy. Municipalities often have robust defenses, experienced counsel, and statutory shields. Trials can take years and consume substantial legal costs.

This is where mediation becomes a practical and forward-thinking option. A mediated settlement can deliver fair compensation while avoiding years of litigation, and it can prompt the municipality to address the hazard more quickly. In cases like my friend’s, where the facts are strong but the legal hurdles are high, mediation offers a balanced path to resolution—one that preserves dignity, reduces stress, and, most importantly, gets results without unnecessary delay.

Final Word:

The transition between a crosswalk and a sidewalk should be seamless—not a trap for the unwary. Municipalities have a duty to keep these public spaces safe, but the law sets high thresholds for holding them accountable. For injured pedestrians, acting quickly—both in giving notice and gathering evidence—is essential. And for many, mediation remains the most efficient way to secure closure and see real change on the ground.