Government bodies (including municipalities) are afforded certain statutory immunities from claims involving the presence or absence of signs. However, the recent decision of Coolidge 2025 ABKB 286, indicates this is not an absolute immunity from all claims involving signs and there is a duty to maintain signs posted by the government body. 

Background

In Coolidge, the plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries after driving his motorcycle off a highway following a curve in the road. The chevron sign indicating there was a curve had previously detached and laid in a ditch. It could not be seen by users of the road, and it was also believed that the plaintiff collided with the sign upon leaving the road. The plaintiff commenced litigation against multiple parties, including the provincial government, surrounding municipalities and the highway maintenance contractor.

The province applied to summarily dismiss the claim. The issue was whether the province had a duty to maintain the sign and whether it could rely on the statutory immunity related to signage. 

This decision is important for municipalities because they are afforded the near identical statutory immunities under the Municipal Government Act (MGA). 

Statutory Immunity 

The province relied on section 42(7) of the Highways Development Protection Act (HPDA) which states:

(7) No action may be brought against the Crown for loss or damage caused

(a)  by the presence or absence or insufficiency of any wall, fence, guardrail, railing, curb, pavement, markings, traffic control device, illumination device, barrier adjacent to or in, along or on the highway

(b)  by or on account of any construction, obstruction or erection or any situation, arrangement or disposition of any earth, rock, tree or other material or thing adjacent to or in, along or on the highway that is not on the roadway.

The MGA contains the same statutory immunity in section 533. 

Decision

The province first argued it could not be liable for the plaintiff’s accident as it was caused by a “thing” which was not on the roadway as pursuant to section (42)(7)(b). It was also argued the plaintiff did not allege his accident was caused by the absence or presence of a sign as pursuant to section (42)(7)(a).

The Court relied on precedent from multiple cases involving municipalities but primarily focused on Parkland v Stetar and Pyke v Calgary. The common theme is that statutory immunity protects governments from liability arising from the decision to install a traffic control device. However, once such a device is erected, the government has a duty to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair.

Here, the Court determined the claim was not about the “absence” of a sign, but rather about the failure to maintain an already-installed sign. This distinction aligned with Parkland and Pyke, where the Court refused to extend immunity to hazards created by disrepair. The Court emphasized the plaintiff’s injuries flowed from the downed, hidden sign itself, not simply from its absence. Section 42(7)(a) of the HDPA was inapplicable.

Further, section 42(7)(b) of the HDPA did not automatically shield the province. While the sign was off the travelled portion of the roadway, the province had not proven that it was intentionally and properly placed in the ditch. Immunity under provisions equivalent to section 42(7)(b) applies to planned placements—not to objects that end up off the road due to disrepair or neglect. The plaintiff’s pleadings alleged such neglect.

The Court also looked to previous case law under section 533 of the MGA, which has been considered in multiple Alberta cases, including Malmas and Pyke, where the Court emphasized the distinction between the absence of traffic control devices and their state of repair. These MGA cases confirmed that once a municipality chooses to erect a traffic control device, it must be kept in a reasonable state of repair. Thus, the interpretation of section 533 of the MGA guided the Court in concluding that section 42(7) could not shield the province from liability as the plaintiff’s claim was based on disrepair rather than non-installation.

The Court held the province’s summary dismissal application could not succeed at this stage because it was not plain and obvious that statutory immunity applied. Whether the province discharged its duty to maintain the sign in a reasonable state of repair was a live issue requiring trial.

Key Takeaway

Coolidge confirms that government bodies are not automatically afforded statutory immunity simply because signage is involved in a claim. Once a sign is erected, the government body has a duty to maintain it from falling into a state of disrepair. The distinction between “absence” and “disrepair” of signage is critical. Once a sign is installed, the duty to maintain it in a reasonable condition applies. There is nonimmunity for failing to reasonably maintain the sign in a state of good repair. Municipalities should be aware of the signs they post along roadways and ensure they are reasonably maintained.