<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Municipal Law &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/municipal-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 03:51:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Ontario Court of Appeal to Municipalities on “Untravelled” Portions of Roadways: “Look Out (for) Bello!”</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-to-municipalities-on-untravelled-portions-of-roadways-look-out-for-bello/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ontario-court-of-appeal-to-municipalities-on-untravelled-portions-of-roadways-look-out-for-bello</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-to-municipalities-on-untravelled-portions-of-roadways-look-out-for-bello/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 23:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7555</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Michael Kryworuk On November 7, 2025, Justice&#160; Bradley W. Miller, writing on behalf of a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal, released their decision in Bello v. Hamilton (City) 2025 ONCA 758. This matter concerned an appeal of a successful summary judgment motion brought by the municipality, the City of Hamilton, dismissing [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-to-municipalities-on-untravelled-portions-of-roadways-look-out-for-bello/">Ontario Court of Appeal to Municipalities on “Untravelled” Portions of Roadways: “Look Out (for) Bello!”</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/ontario-court-of-appeal-to-municipalities-on-untravelled-portions-of-roadways-look-out-for-bello/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Essential Expertise: The Importance of Expert Evidence to Inform Standard of Care</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7453</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Riley Groskopf The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released a trial decision in the matter of Valerio et al. v. The Corporation of the City of London et al., 2025 ONSC 4332. The plaintiffs, Mr. Valerio and his family, claimed against the City of London as well as a construction company for damages [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care/">Essential Expertise: The Importance of Expert Evidence to Inform Standard of Care</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/essential-expertise-the-importance-using-experts-to-determine-standard-of-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Dismisses Action on the Basis of use of an “Untravelled” Highway</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/7108-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=7108-2</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/7108-2/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 15:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7108</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Emily Vereshchak In Bello v. City of Hamilton, 2024 ONSC 5457, the Court examined whether the plaintiff’s personal injury action ought to be dismissed on the basis that the plaintiff was cycling on an untraveled potion of highway in the City of Hamilton. Facts The plaintiff was biking with a group of cyclists along [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/7108-2/">Court Dismisses Action on the Basis of use of an “Untravelled” Highway</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/7108-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Municipality Feels the “Butterfly Effect” on its Highway Maintenance Obligations</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/municipality-feels-the-butterfly-effect-on-its-highway-maintenance-obligations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=municipality-feels-the-butterfly-effect-on-its-highway-maintenance-obligations</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/municipality-feels-the-butterfly-effect-on-its-highway-maintenance-obligations/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2024 18:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7027</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Michael Kryworuk On April 18, 2024, Justice Adrianna Doyle of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Bellville released her decision&#160; in The Corporation of the Municipality of Marmora and Lake v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, 2024 ONSC 2254. This matter concerned an application brought by the Municipality of Marmora [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/municipality-feels-the-butterfly-effect-on-its-highway-maintenance-obligations/">Municipality Feels the “Butterfly Effect” on its Highway Maintenance Obligations</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/municipality-feels-the-butterfly-effect-on-its-highway-maintenance-obligations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beware of the Surface – Statutory Defences Available for Municipalities</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/beware-of-the-surface-statutory-defences-available-for-municipalities/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=beware-of-the-surface-statutory-defences-available-for-municipalities</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/beware-of-the-surface-statutory-defences-available-for-municipalities/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 21:47:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6966</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Elizabeth Branopolski In the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Hamilton-Dawkins v. Town of Ajax, 2024 ONSC 2152, the Court considered whether the Town of Ajax was able to rely on the statutory defences available under s. 44 of the Municipal Act to avoid liability. Background The plaintiff, Dorothy Hamilton-Dawkins, brought an [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/beware-of-the-surface-statutory-defences-available-for-municipalities/">Beware of the Surface – Statutory Defences Available for Municipalities</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/beware-of-the-surface-statutory-defences-available-for-municipalities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Late Notice and Lack of Duty of Care: Dismissal of Municipality Trip and Fall Claim</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-notice-and-lack-of-duty-of-care-dismissal-of-municipality-trip-and-fall-claim/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=late-notice-and-lack-of-duty-of-care-dismissal-of-municipality-trip-and-fall-claim</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-notice-and-lack-of-duty-of-care-dismissal-of-municipality-trip-and-fall-claim/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6918</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Nasra Esak In Marderosian v. City of Niagara Falls, 2024 ONSC 1043, the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls brought a summary judgement motion to determine whether the plaintiff’s claim was barred for lack of timely notice, as well as whether it had a duty of care to maintain areas occupied and maintained [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-notice-and-lack-of-duty-of-care-dismissal-of-municipality-trip-and-fall-claim/">Late Notice and Lack of Duty of Care: Dismissal of Municipality Trip and Fall Claim</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/late-notice-and-lack-of-duty-of-care-dismissal-of-municipality-trip-and-fall-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-119/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-119</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-119/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6679</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Eli Feldman discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Beardwood et al. v. The City of Hamilton, 2023 ONCA 436. Introduction In Beardwood et al. v. The City of Hamilton, 2023 ONCA 436 (“Beardwood”), the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “ONCA”) considered the statutory impact on a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-119/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-119/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>When is a Municipality Liable in a Motor Vehicle Accident?</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/when-is-a-municipality-liable-in-a-motor-vehicle-accident/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=when-is-a-municipality-liable-in-a-motor-vehicle-accident</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/when-is-a-municipality-liable-in-a-motor-vehicle-accident/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2023 17:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6610</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jennifer Singh In Morris et al. v. Prince et al. [1] the plaintiff was involved in a pedestrian accident, wherein he was hit by the defendant, operating a pickup truck. The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant driver as well as the City of London. One of the major issues to be determined, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/when-is-a-municipality-liable-in-a-motor-vehicle-accident/">When is a Municipality Liable in a Motor Vehicle Accident?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/when-is-a-municipality-liable-in-a-motor-vehicle-accident/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-96</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2022 23:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6300</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly Friday meeting, Nasra Esak discussed a recent Ontario Superior Court decision granting a summary judgement brought by the defendant in&#160;Strilchuck v. Tecumseh (Town of), 2022 ONSC 5841. Overview Justice King granted a summary judgement brought by the Town (the defendant) to dismiss a trip and fall personal injury action on the basis [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Building Inspections: The Ongoing Duty</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/building-inspections-the-ongoing-duty/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=building-inspections-the-ongoing-duty</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/building-inspections-the-ongoing-duty/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2022 21:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6201</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Michael Kryworuk On September 1, 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Breen v. Lake of Bays (Township), 2022 ONCA 626, upholding the trial judge’s finding that once a building permit is granted, a municipality has an obligation to inspect the building whether or not the building permit holder requests an [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/building-inspections-the-ongoing-duty/">Building Inspections: The Ongoing Duty</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/building-inspections-the-ongoing-duty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
