In what circumstances will Euro-Ex have to prove that it has a reasonable system in place to ensure the safe design, construction and inspection of such ramps?

The defendant relies on a number of authorities in support of its position. In Nandlal v. Toronto Transit Commission[13] the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because she was unable to produce evidence of the debris she allegedly fell on and the defendant demonstrated that it had a reasonable system in place to keep the premises safe. Here, Euro-Ex has admitted to constructing the ramp; however, has failed to provide evidence that it had a reasonable system in place to ensure the safe design, construction, and inspection of such ramps. Euro-Ex confirmed that no additional lighting was installed in the vicinity of the ramp, no warning signage was erected, or other demarcations made to ensure the safe passage of pedestrians over the ramp.

In Hamilton v. Ontario Corporation #2000533 o/a Toronto Community Housing Corporation[14] the court dismissed the action finding that the plaintiff had failed to adduce any objective evidence to pinpoint an unsafe condition at the incident site. Here, the plaintiffs have identified the ramp as the unsafe condition at the incident site.

The plaintiffs rely on the decision in Kamin v. Kawartha Dairy Ltd.[15] to support their position. In Kamin the Court of Appeal overturned the motion judge’s dismissal of the action finding that the plaintiff’s failure to recall the precise location of her fall in a parking lot found to be in a state of disrepair was not fatal to her proving her injuries were caused or materially contributed to by the defendant’s negligence.