Is there any case law where a contractor has been found in breach of a maintenance contract?

Similarly, in Steen v. British Columbia, supra, Romilly J. noted at ¶ 36 that the case was not one of contracts, and that the issue was not compliance with the contract, but rather whether the contractor was negligent in keeping the roads safe for members of the public. In that case, the accident occurred on a classification ‘A’ highway. The contractor had been given notice of icy conditions in the area of the accident; ten minutes later an employee arrived at the area and spread a mixture of sand and salt. However, the trial judge concluded that the employee had either not dealt with the problem or was negligent in how he dealt with it, as at the time of the accident the highway was “like a skating rink” (at ¶ 13). Therefore, the contractor was negligent in failing to effectively remedy the hazardous situation. The above decisions suggest that breach of the maintenance contract, in and of itself, is not determinative of the issue of negligence. See also Foster v. Perry, 2005 BCSC 1214 at ¶ 21.

Other cases suggest that compliance with the contract will be sufficient to discharge the contractor’s duty of care to users of the road. In Dagneault v. Hatton, supra, Goldie J.A. concluded that the contractual provisions in the maintenance contract respecting the removal of ice met the requirement of taking reasonable steps to prevent injury (at ¶ 36-37). In that case, the contractor’s response to the development of hazardous conditions had been prompt: a driver had been sanding a steep hill, as he had been requested to do, but had to turn off his sanding apparatus to safely proceed up the hill. Rather than turning around to remedy the situation on the hill, the driver continued on to determine whether the slippery road conditions continued. An accident occurred on the hill within minutes thereafter, but the contractor was found not to have been negligent.