City not liable for damage when horesplay results in broken plate glass window

The Ontario Superior Court ruled the City of Brantford was not liable for damages after two youths shattered the plate glass of the Brantford Civic Centre while engaging in horseplay.
In Mott v. Brantford (City), the plaintiff, Bobby Joe Mott, had taken a break from skateboarding at a skateboard park on the premises and approached the Civic Centre for a drink of water.
At that point, his friend, Nick Atanasov, grabbed Mott in a headlock and began to engage in some horseplay.
The two were closer to the Civic Centre’s plate glass windows than they thought. The next thing he knew, Mott testified, he was sitting on the window ledge, bleeding and with shards of glass all around him, wondering what had happened.
Mott sued for damages and the court determined the City of Brantford was not liable.
Counsel for Mott argued the City ought to have known that with a skateboard park on its premises and knowing that skateboarders demonstrate “risk-taking” characteristics the Civic Centre should have opted for the installation of a safer form of glass than plate glass.
And at one point, in obiter remarks, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jane Milanetti appears to agree with the plaintiff. “I do not accept that mere compliance with the Building Code is all that is required to resist liability,” she wrote, rejecting the defence’s claim that plate glass conformed to Building Code standards.
In the end, however, Milanetti noted the incident did not actually happen at the skateboard park, supposedly the reason for the stronger windows. In addition, incidents of horseplay in the area had happened many times before without it resulting in the loss of a plate glass window.
“I find as fact that the City of Brantford had no reason to re-think the use of the glass,” she concluded.