Fence Maintenance (LTB): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Maintenance Obligations (LTB) ==Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (CanLII)<ref name="Youssef"/>== <ref name="Youssef">Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (CanLII)<ref name="Youssef"/>== | ==Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (CanLII)<ref name="Youssef"/>== | ||
[4] The motion judge concluded that the appellant was negligent as a residential landlord of rural property because it had no policy or procedure in place to inspect or repair the fences although it was its obligation to do so. Implicit in the motion judge’s reasons was the finding that the appellant was negligent in permitting an unlocked gate through which animals could and did escape on to the adjacent roadway. As a result, the appellant was responsible for the negligence of its tenant, Mark Burnfield, who had allowed his animals to escape and create a public nuisance on the roadway. Mr. Burnfield had been noted in default and did not participate in the motion or the appeal. | |||
<ref name="Youssef">Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5251>, retrieved on 2020-08-17</ref> | <ref name="Youssef">Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5251>, retrieved on 2020-08-17</ref> | ||
==References== | |||
Revision as of 00:59, 18 August 2020
Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (CanLII)[1]
[4] The motion judge concluded that the appellant was negligent as a residential landlord of rural property because it had no policy or procedure in place to inspect or repair the fences although it was its obligation to do so. Implicit in the motion judge’s reasons was the finding that the appellant was negligent in permitting an unlocked gate through which animals could and did escape on to the adjacent roadway. As a result, the appellant was responsible for the negligence of its tenant, Mark Burnfield, who had allowed his animals to escape and create a public nuisance on the roadway. Mr. Burnfield had been noted in default and did not participate in the motion or the appeal.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Youssef v. Misselbrook, 2020 ONCA 83 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j5251>, retrieved on 2020-08-17
