Can You Sue a Municipality After a Bicycle Crash Caused by a Dangerous Road or Path in Ontario?

Yes. A cyclist seriously injured by a pothole, washout, broken bike lane, eroded shoulder or concealed hazard on a municipal route can have a claim against the municipality responsible for it.

That does not only apply when cyclists fall in marked bike lanes. In a recent Ontario Court of Appeal case, a cyclist suffered catastrophic spinal cord injuries on a dirt path beside a Hamilton roadway. A marked bicycle lane was available nearby. The City argued that the cyclist’s case should be dismissed because he was injured outside the designated lane.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The case was allowed to continue because there was evidence that cyclists and pedestrians regularly used the path for travel.

This is one type of serious claim handled by Ontario bicycle accident lawyers: a cycling injury caused not by a vehicle striking the rider, but by a dangerous route that should not have been left in that condition.

The Crash in Bello v. Hamilton

Mr. Bello was riding with a group of cyclists between two recreational trails in Hamilton. When the group reached Stone Church Road East, they had a choice. They could ride on the paved shoulder, where there was a marked bicycle lane, or take a worn dirt path on the other side of the guardrail.

They decided to take the dirt path. Mr. Bello’s evidence was that he considered it the safer route because it kept the cyclists farther from vehicle traffic.

When they approached a culvert, there was a large hazard in the path, hidden by tall grass. Mr. Bello fell and sustained a catastrophic spinal cord injury resulting in tetraplegia.

He sued the City of Hamilton. Hamilton’s position was that the case should not get to trial at all. The City relied on s. 44(8) of Ontario’s Municipal Act, 2001, which prevents claims based on a municipality’s failure to maintain certain “untravelled” portions of a highway. Hamilton argued that the dirt path outside the guardrail was not the route intended for bicycle travel, particularly because a marked bike lane was available on the road.

The motion judge accepted that argument and dismissed Mr. Bello’s claim, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.

The Important Part of the Decision

Hamilton could not win by showing that it had provided a marked bike lane and had not intended cyclists to use the dirt path.

The Court of Appeal held that the way the public used the route also mattered. If a portion of a highway is commonly and habitually used by the public for ordinary travel, it is not necessarily an “untravelled portion” simply because the municipality would prefer people to use another route.

There was evidence that the dirt path in Bello had been used regularly by cyclists and pedestrians. That evidence was enough to prevent the City from having the lawsuit dismissed under s. 44(8).

It is important to note that the decision did not establish that Hamilton was negligent. Mr. Bello still has to prove his case against the City. The Court of Appeal decided only that the City could not avoid a trial by treating the dirt path as legally irrelevant when there was evidence that people routinely used it to travel.

A Bike Lane Nearby Does Not Automatically Defeat a Claim

The existence of a marked bike lane was obviously important in Bello. It was one of Hamilton’s strongest facts. Mr. Bello had a designated cycling option and used a different route. But cyclists do not always make that choice irrationally. A marked lane on the shoulder of a busy road can feel less safe than a path separated from traffic by a guardrail. In Bello, that was the explanation for using the dirt path.

This does not mean a cyclist’s choice of route is irrelevant. A city can still argue that a rider ignored a warning, went around a barrier, chose an obviously dangerous route or contributed to the crash. Those arguments can reduce or defeat a claim depending on the evidence.

What a municipality cannot necessarily do is rely on the existence of a nearby bike lane to end the lawsuit before the court considers how the route was used and why the crash happened.

When Can a Cyclist Have a Claim Against a Municipality?

Section 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001 applies to highways and bridges under municipal jurisdiction. In a bicycle case, the claim can arise from a defect in a bike lane or roadway, or from a hazard on an area alleged to form part of the travelled portion of a municipal highway.

A large pothole in a marked bike lane is a very clear example. The cyclist who is riding exactly where the route directs bicycle traffic. The dispute will usually concern how dangerous the defect was, how long it existed, whether it should have been found or repaired, whether municipal maintenance standards were met and whether the pothole caused the fall.

A claim which involves a shoulder or informal path will logically be harder. Before the municipality even answers for the condition of the route, it can argue that the cyclist was not riding on a portion of the highway for which the municipality owed a repair duty. That is the argument Hamilton made in Bello.

Evidence of regular use can be decisive at that stage. A worn route connecting two trails, photographs showing repeated bicycle and pedestrian use, local witnesses, municipal records or previous complaints can help establish that the area functioned as a route for ordinary travel.

Not every path owned or maintained by a municipality is governed by the same road-repair provisions. A park trail or recreational path can require a different analysis from a defect in a bike lane or an informal route within a municipal road allowance. The location of the fall has to be investigated carefully.

The 10-Day Notice Deadline

Municipal bicycle accident claims carry a deadline that many injured people do not know exists.

If a cyclist claims that a municipality failed to keep a highway or bridge in a reasonable state of repair, s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act, 2001 generally requires written notice within 10 days after the injury. The notice must set out the claim and injury complained of, including the date, time and location of the occurrence, and must be served on or sent by registered mail to the municipal clerk.

Ten days can pass before a cyclist with a serious injury has left the hospital. A person dealing with spinal surgery, rehabilitation or a serious head injury is not ordinarily investigating whether the location of the fall was part of a municipal highway or searching for the correct clerk’s office.

Ontario law allows late notice to be excused where there is a reasonable excuse for the delay and the municipality has not been prejudiced in defending the claim. That can be extremely important where the injury itself prevented immediate action.

It is still much safer to provide notice within the 10-day period when possible. An injured cyclist who believes a pothole, broken route, washout, unsafe shoulder or other municipal hazard contributed to the crash should get legal advice quickly.

The Route Can Be Repaired Before the Claim Is Investigated

Damaged bicycles can be stored. Medical imaging remains available. The route itself can change almost immediately. A pothole can be filled the next morning. Long grass hiding a hole can be cut. Loose material can be swept from a cycling lane. A damaged shoulder can be resurfaced. A barrier or warning sign can appear after a crash.

That makes early photographs and video particularly important. Images should show the defect from the direction the cyclist approached it, not only a close-up of the hole. They should capture the surrounding route, any bike lane, shoulder, guardrail, trail connection, vegetation, signage and the absence of warnings if none existed.

The bicycle and helmet should also be preserved. Damage to the front wheel, fork or frame can support the cyclist’s account of striking a defect and being thrown from the bicycle.

In a case like Bello, there is another layer of evidence: proof that people used the route before the accident. Other cyclists, pedestrians or neighbours may know that a path was routinely used. Photographs, online route information, municipal planning records, inspection records, complaints and earlier incident reports can help show whether the route was an ordinary connection or merely an area beside the road where no one was expected to travel.

What If a Driver Also Contributed to the Bicycle Crash?

Some cycling accidents involve both an unsafe route and the conduct of a driver.

A vehicle can force a cyclist into a pothole, off a paved lane or onto a dangerous shoulder without hitting the bicycle. In that situation, the cyclist can have a claim against the driver and a claim relating to the unsafe roadway condition. The involvement of an automobile can also support a claim for accident benefits even where there was no physical contact.

A cyclist who falls because of a road defect alone, without any automobile involvement, is generally dealing with a liability claim against the municipality or another party responsible for the route rather than an accident-benefits claim.

For more information about cases with vehicle involvement, see our article on accident benefits for injured cyclists in Ontario.

Damages After a Serious Municipal Bicycle Accident

A road defect can cause the same catastrophic injury as a collision with a vehicle.

Mr. Bello’s injury was not minor simply because no car struck him. He suffered tetraplegia after being thrown from his bicycle by a concealed hazard. Other unsafe-route crashes can cause serious brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, complex fractures and permanent restrictions on work and independence.

If municipal negligence is proven, an injured cyclist can seek compensation for the losses caused by the crash. In a severe injury case, that can include income loss, treatment and rehabilitation expenses, attendant care, future care costs, mobility equipment, home modifications and the long-term effect of the injury on the person’s life.

A municipality will not be liable simply because the consequences were devastating. The route, the hazard, the municipal duty, the statutory defences, causation and the losses all have to be proven.

That is why these cases require the same thorough investigation as any other serious Ontario bicycle injury claim, together with the additional urgency created by the municipal notice deadline.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue a city if a pothole caused my bicycle crash?

A cyclist can have a claim where a defect in a municipal highway or cycling route caused the crash and the municipality failed to meet its repair obligation. The claim will depend on the location of the defect, the evidence about its condition, available municipal defences and whether notice was provided within the required period.

Can I sue if I was injured on a path beside a road instead of in a bike lane?

Possibly. In Bello v. Hamilton, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a cyclist’s claim to continue even though he was injured on a dirt path beside the road rather than in the marked bike lane. The evidence that cyclists and pedestrians commonly used the path was important.

Did the cyclist win his case in Bello v. Hamilton?

No. He succeeded on the appeal, which meant his lawsuit against Hamilton was restored to the trial list. The Court of Appeal did not decide that Hamilton was negligent or that damages should be paid.

How quickly do I need to notify a municipality after a bicycle crash caused by a road defect?

For a claim under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, written notice is generally required within 10 days after the injury. The notice must include the date, time and location of the occurrence. Late notice can be excused in some circumstances, but it is far safer to provide notice promptly.

Speak With an Ontario Bicycle Accident Lawyer

A bicycle crash caused by an unsafe bike lane, shoulder or road-adjacent path can leave an injured cyclist facing a complicated case and a very short municipal notice period. The route can be repaired before the cyclist is even able to investigate what happened.

Foster Injury Law can represent cyclists seriously injured in accidents across Ontario. If you or a family member suffered a serious cycling injury because of a dangerous roadway, bike lane, shoulder or path, contact us for a free consultation.

About the Author

Lane Foster is an Ontario personal injury lawyer and the founder of Foster Injury Law. He represents people seriously injured in bicycle accidents and other serious personal injury claims across Ontario.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general information only and is not legal advice. The law applicable to a bicycle accident or municipal liability claim depends on the specific facts and applicable deadlines.