Centre For Local Research into Public Space (CELOS)


See also Site Map

Citizen-Z Cavan Young's 2004 film about the zamboni crisis

Contact

mail@celos.ca

Search


Custodians:

FOI: Liability claims related to Dufferin Grove Park over the past 25 years

May 21, 2018, ORIGINAL REQUEST Request 2018 – 01075

Please send me a complete, detailed list of every legal claim made against the municipality of Toronto for any event occurring at DUFFERIN GROVE PARK ONLY since 1993. That includes personal injury claims as well as any other claims (for example, city vehicle accidents, tree damage, etc.) I need the date of the claim, the detailed reason given for the claim, the amount of damages claimed (if specified), the legal, staffing and court costs to the city, the size of the settlement (if any), and the duration of time between the making of the claim and when it was closed/solved (or specify if still pending or unknown).

Date From: 01-Jan-1993 Date To: 31-Dec-2017


Query to Denise Stuckless, June 24, 2018

The legal claims response arrived on Friday, thank you. I asked for a detailed list of "every legal claim made against the City of Toronto for any event occurring at Dufferin Grove Park only since 1993."

The response contains some abbreviations that I could not find online: COT and TP. and C.

Also, it appears that the 1999 item in the list may be a claim between divisions, and the 2004 and March 2016 items may be the city suing a non-city person, not the other way around.

The list, in other words, although very suggestive, is not sufficiently detailed to find out what we need. Could IRM send me a more complete description of each of the claim numbers listed? I assume that they can send their complete file for each claim number except for the names of the claimants.

It would be best if I could get the information electronically.


 
Response from Denise Stuckless, June 25, 2018

COT means City of Toronto

TP means Toronto Police

C means complete.

I will ask Risk Management if they can provide a little more detail to the spreadsheet and will get back to you.


Auditor's report: Insurance and Risk Management Review, Feb.22, 2010

Says there are some problems with documentation and follow-up


Dufferin Grove Newsletter Item, July 2018

“What if”: lawsuits at Dufferin Grove in 25 years – only six in total

In public spaces, it sometimes seems like there’s more effort put into stopping good things from happening – “what if there was a lawsuit?” – than into helping to make good things happen. For instance, one of the current recreation program supervisors at Dufferin Grove Park, Jaydee Cornwall, has been worried about the use of the real metal shovels at the adventure playground, and even about the kids being hurt by the water coming from the tap. He says he’s seen small children being “severely” splashed when the tap flow is strong enough to create the stream that turns children into little engineers all the way down to the lane. Someone could be injured and then there’s a lawsuit.

Since CELOS is a research organization, we decided to find out how serious the problem of injury lawsuits against the city really is. The sandpit has been going for 25 years now, and there were always metal shovels. The water tap was added about 20 years ago, after the kids lobbied hard for water and kept moving the garden hoses over to the sandpit.

It costs only $5 to make a freedom of information request, so in early May, CELOS asked for “a complete, detailed list of every legal claim made against the City of Toronto for any event occurring at Dufferin Grove Park since 1993.”

On June 22 we got the answer. It said that there have been only six claims against Dufferin Grove Park over the past 25 years, all apparently resulting in a payout.

In October 1999, there was a claim (payout: $380.55) for “1st floor collapse due to….[blank].” We remember that: during a routine building check that month, staff discovered that the Dufferin Grove rink house floor had sunk four inches due to the vibration of the compressors (a full account is on our cityrinks.ca website). So who was suing who, for $380?

In 2001 there was a claim for an incident on March 31 described as Rd/Sidewalk - Weather Cond – TP alleges slip. Payout: $49,152.31. The historical weather report for that day was unexceptional. Apparently TP stands for Toronto Police. Who slipped and who sued?

In 2004 there was a claim for Nov.5, described as “Stolen vehicle struck iron fence.” Payout: $2082.71. Did the city sue the thief? (Good idea, maybe….)

In 2011, there was a claim for Feb.22 for “Ice pad hazard – sustained injuries due to ice.” Payout: $799.20.

In 2016, there were two claims. The first was on March 8 for “INSURED STRUCK TP VEHICLE WHILE EXITING PARKING SPACE.” There are of course no parking spaces in Dufferin Grove Park, and the claim is listed under the city’s Solid Waste Management division. Did a city garbage truck hit a police car in the park? Payout: $100. (Yes, really.)

Later, in September of 2016, there was a claim for CLAIMANT SLIPPED AND FELL IN DUFFERIN GROVE PARK. Payout: $1078.

And that’s it. We’re following up with the FOI office to clear up the most puzzling parts of the descriptions.

Conclusion: the cost of lawsuits at Dufferin Grove Park - not much

During the past 25 years of liveliness, although some kids must have broken their arms falling off the monkey bars, some soccer players must have turned their ankles on the playing field, some shinny hockey players must have crashed into each other on the ice, park cookies and mini-pizzas must have disagreed with somebody’s digestion, thousands of park campfires flickered close to people’s clothing, youth did gravity-defying stunts on their DIY skateboard rink pad – the city reports only 6 claims, and none for any of those good+ things that happen in the park. Total claims paid out over 25 years: $53,592.

So there’s good news. It seems that people who come to the park are NOT very litigious. That should mean the shovels and the water can stay, and the campfires and musicians and the shinny hockey (without mandatory helmets) too.


July 13, 2018, from Denise Stuckless

I have heard from Insurance and Risk Management regarding your request for more information.

In terms of more detail, only three of the claims are liability claims (are you aware that if you click on the loss description field more detail is provided).

We don't have any additional information to provide.


 
July 13, 2018, to Denise Stuckless

I can't click on the loss description field because I only got a paper copy. Would you be able to send it to me electronically?


 
July 13, 2018: Electronic copy of FOI response

FOI 2018 01075


 
July 13, 2018, to Denise Stuckless

Thanks for sending that. I thought you meant that there was additional information, but that little chart you attached was sent to me as a hard copy already.

It has insufficient detail so I will appeal to the province.

Interesting, that they would have paid out more than $49,000 for that one claim in 2001 but they say they have no more information about it.

Our appeal will show -- if nothing else -- that risk management needs better records.



 
FOI follow-up request re liability claims at DG

This request is a follow-up to City of Toronto Access Request 2018 – 01075. I have been informed by IPC that in order to find out the circumstances of claims (loss descriptions), I cannot merely ask for a complete, detailed list of claims relating to Dufferin Grove Park. Therefore, I’d like to ask you to please send me electronic copies of all records pertaining to the following legal claim numbers:
008-2730
017-7380
035-9940
16-71425
16-68445
11-30458


 
Jan.4, 2019, decision letter

Access is denied in full to the responsive records. Access is denied to remaining parts of the records under sections 12 and 14 of the Act.

  • Section 12 has been relied upon to deny access to the records that are subject to solicitor-client privilege.
  • Section 14 (1) has been relied upon to sever the personal information of individuals as the disclosure would constitute an unjustified invarion of privacy.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a relevant Order from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario that supports this Access decision: Order PO-2818 Appeal PA09-2 Ministry of Government Services

Correspondence with Denise Stuckless of FOI:

Jan. 24, 2019:

Hi Denise, my colleague Belinda Cole, copied here, would like to call you for a brief conversation before we file an appeal about the claims information we're seeking. The deadline is getting close, so fingers crossed that you and she can connect. Belinda, Denise's phone number is16 338-5636.

Jan. 25,2019

Denise to Belinda and Jutta: I can speak to you but I would like some idea of the nature of the call beforehand. The records are all subject to solicitor-client privilege AND they contain a great deal of personal information so there is not a lot to discuss.

Jan.25, 2019

Belinda to Denise: I'd like to ask you for details about 2 of the claims - that relate to the 2 incidents in Dufferin Grove Park.

We are not looking for any information that would identify the claimant in either case, nor the adjuster's opinion, only for the circumstances that led to the claim - e.g. what happened? What led to the injuries/harm?

Jan.25, 2019, Denise to Belinda

Jutta has mentioned that she wants to use details from this request to put in her monthly newsletter.

As per our telephone conversation, I stated that my role as an Access and Privacy Officer requires me to review records for disclosure, I do not summarize or create records. The claims files in their entirety are subject to solicitor client privilege. A very brief summary was provided in the original FOI request and that is all that is all the detail I can provide. You could ask Parks staff if they remember the incident and they may provide you with some detail of the situation but we are not disclosing the claims files or drafting a summary that can be used in the newsletter.

Jan.25, 2019, Belinda to Denise

This is unfortunate, and difficult to fathom.

As we discussed,

1. we were not looking for any information about the claimants' identities\\ 2. we understand that advice given by lawyers working on the claim would be subject to the solicitor/client exemption, and\\ 3. that you have no obligation to create or summarize information.

I requested a copy of the claims submitted by the person injured, redacted to remove any personal information, so we are aware of the circumstances that led to the injury and claim.

On what grounds could these claims files in their 'entirety' be subject to solicitor client privilege?

I am also not aware of any exemption from the duty to provide public records on the grounds that information may be shared in a newsletter.

Please note we retain the right to appeal this claim regarding details of all of the claims in the original request.

Jan.31, 2019, Denise to Belinda and Jutta

There is not one record in the file that I could provide that describes the incident in detail that I could redact.

As a courtesy, I will provide the following information that I pieced together from the files:

Case 11-30458 an unknown dog ran into the outdoor skating rink that caused a person to fall.

Case 16-71425 is a slip and fall where the claimant fell over a boulder near parking white curbs.

Request submitted on Feb.4, 2019:

Please send me an electronic or a paper copy of the claim descriptions of the legal claim numbers below, giving me the same level of detail as I got for Access Request #00262.

The claims for which I need this level of detail are: 008-2730, 017-7380, 035-9940, 16-71425, 16-68445, 11-30458. I don't want personal information (e.g. names or addresses) of claimants nor do I want records subject to solicitor-client privilege. I need sufficient details of the claims to find out what the circumstances of the injury were, what the injury was, and what the claimant felt the city could have done to prevent the injury.

Feb.4, 2019

Jutta to Denise: Thank you, Denise, for sending me those details as a courtesy. I have just filed a new request, this time with a link to the FOI response I got to a 2008 request about citywide playground injuries. I send the response as an example, and I hope that it gives a better idea of the kind of information I need (information that was regarded as available and not subject to extra fees in 2008).

The 2008 request was prompted by the city spending about $6 million between 2000 and 2005, to remove and replace city playgrounds based on an assertion that the playgrounds of the time were very dangerous.

My current request is based on the oft-repeated assertion by city staff that they need to prevent an activity in a park because there have been lawsuits. This can reduce the enjoyment of parks by Torontonians, and therefore any reasons for stopping activities need to have good public documentation.

The issue is important to park users.

Belinda and I thought we might want to appeal the previous decision sent in your January 4, 2019 letter. But if an appeal is needed, we would first like to make sure that our request is as clear as possible. I hope that the request I just submitted online makes it clear that (1) I do not want information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege and (2) that I do not want private information such as for example the names or addresses of the claimants.

I look forward to the city's response in a month or so.

Feb.6, 2019

Phone call from ? at FOI, saying that they can't find Access Request #00262. When she found out that it was a request made in 2008, she said they have no record of that. it's too long ago and the program they use has changed. She also said that this request is the same as before and therefore I need to go straight to the IPC. When I said that my new request is an attempt to make sure it's as clear as possible, she read over the request again and found this:

I need sufficient details of the claims to find out what the circumstances of the injury were, what the injury was, and what the claimant felt the city could have done to prevent the injury.

Made a note to call them on March 11 to see if they're almost ready with their response.

March 13, 2019

Response arrived from the city:

File 0177380: Location: Dufferin Grove Park
Cause: trip and fall on raised interlocking brick in path
The trip ledge was created when City Parks Trucks were sodding on either side of interlocking brick path.The injury was a fractured left wrist. Settlement was $36,250.

File 1671425: Location: Dufferin Grove Park
Cause: tripped over parking curb
Broken left collar bone

File 1130458: Location: Dufferin Grove Park
Dog ran out on rink and claimant fell over dog injuring his back.

Updated (March 13, 2019) liability item:

Dufferin Grove July 2018 newsletter

March 15, 2019 to FOI

the additional information about Dufferin Grove claims arrived on March 13, thank you.

In the original spreadsheet I received, File 0177380, April 11, 2001 is described as "General Liability Rd/Sidewalk weather Cond - TP alleges slip." "Paid total" is given as $49,152.31.

In the most recent response, the same case is give as "trip and fall on raised interlocking brick in path The trip ledge was created when City Parks trucks were sodding on either side of interlocking brick path. The injury was a fractured left wrist. Settlement was $36,250."

The injury descriptions were much more helpful this time and I hope the department will continue to give that level of detail in future.

There is however a difference of more than $10,000 in the settlement reported. Do you want to ask them about that, or should I just assume that their book-keeping is rather approximate?

March 18, 2019, from FOI

You can contact Risk Management directly if you are interested in the $10,000 difference.


Content last modified on March 19, 2019, at 12:32 AM EST