The Vision Zero Road Safety Plan

The Vision Zero Road Safety Plan  is a comprehensive five year (2017-2021) action plan focused on reducing traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries on Toronto’s streets. With over 50 safety measures across our six emphasis areas, the Plan prioritizes the safety of our most vulnerable road users, through a range of initiatives.

The Vision Zero Road Safety Plan is a bold pledge to improve safety across our city using a data-driven and targeted approach, focusing on the locations where improvements are most needed. The Plan addresses safety for the most vulnerable users of our transportation system—pedestrians, school children, older adults and cyclists. Based on factors that contribute to serious injury and fatality crashes, the plan will also focus on aggressive and distracted driving, and safety for motorcyclists.

The City is committed to Vision Zero and accepts its fundamental message: fatalities and serious injuries on our roads are preventable, and we must strive to reduce traffic-related deaths and injuries to ZERO.

Watch video, here:

Health organizations call for vaping regulations

A day after Canada’s first confirmed case of respiratory illness linked to vaping, health leaders call on the government to immediately implement several regulations. Nigel Newlove has the story.

Watch the news story, here:

Officials announce what’s believed to be Canada’s first vaping-related illness

Health authorities in London, Ontario have identified vaping as the primary cause for one teen’s severe respiratory illness. Richard Southern with the potential health risks of the smoking alternative, and the action the province may take.

Watch the video, here:

, , ,

Pedestrian Safety: Toronto Police Public Safety Portal


View traffic related collisions data involving Pedestrians. These events include any serious or fatal collision where a Pedestrian is involved.

Definition: A pedestrian is a person not occupying a bicycle or motor vehicle and can be doing any of the following:

  • walking,
  • sitting,
  • lying,
  • standing,
  • working on a road or place, or
  • using a small wheeled device that provides personal mobility such as the following:
  • skateboard,
  • skates,
  • in-line skates,
  • scooter,
  • segway,
  • stroller,
  • wheelchair.

How to use Dashboards

Dashboards can be viewed using the following browsers: Microsoft Edge, Internet Explorer 11, Chrome desktop latest version, Safari Mac latest version, Firefox desktop latest version.

Toronto Female pedestrian killed in downtown collision: pedestrian fatalities increase

Incident occurred at Queen Street East and Victoria Street at about 9 a.m. Wednesday

CBC News · Posted: Jun 26, 2019 10:00 AM ET | Last Updated: June 26

The intersection of Queen and Victoria streets was blocked after a female pedestrian was struck Wednesday morning. (Martin Trainor/CBC)

A female pedestrian was killed Wednesday morning in a collision downtown, according to Toronto police.

Emergency crews were called to the intersection of Queen Street East and Victoria Street around 9 a.m.

Police say they found a woman unconscious and not breathing.

Read more, here:

There’s been a surge of pedestrian accidents on Toronto Streets, including fatal accidents.

Toronto Police Statistics, Traffic:

Tesla sued by family of man killed in autopilot crash

By Faiz Siddiqui, The Washington Post Published 3:04 pm PDT, Wednesday, May 1, 2019

SAN FRANCISCO – The family of a man killed in a fiery wreck last year while driving his Tesla along U.S. Route 101 in California is suing the electric vehicle maker, alleging wrongful death and negligence stemming from failures and false promises regarding the Autopilot driver-assistance system.

Walter Huang, a 38-year-old Apple engineer, was driving his Tesla Model X SUV in Mountain View, California, on Autopilot mode in March 2018 when it sped up to 71 mph and crashed into a safety barrier, killing Huang and leaving behind a heap of charred wreckage.

In a statement early Wednesday, the family alleges that Autopilot was at fault. Tesla has been gradually increasing the sophistication of the driver-assistance system – and has promised “full self-driving” capabilities for its vehicles by the end of the year – but some critics say the Autopilot software gives drivers a false sense of security.


“Mrs. Huang lost her husband, and two children lost their father because Tesla is beta testing its Autopilot software on live drivers,” Mark Fong, a partner at Minami Tamaki LLP, one of the firms representing the family, said in a statement. “The Huang family wants to help prevent this tragedy from happening to other drivers using Tesla vehicles or any semi-autonomous vehicles.”

Autopilot is an advanced driver-assistance system with features such as traffic-aware cruise control and lane keeping assistance that are meant to keep the car at speed, maintain a safe distance from traffic and follow road markings. But the family alleged Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot left Huang with an inflated impression of the technology’s capabilities.

The case, which is one of several lawsuits Tesla has faced related to its Autopilot system in recent years, could have broader consequences for the company as it tries to convince more consumers to purchase its vehicles. Alleged Autopilot problems may also result in higher regulatory hurdles for the company as it attempts to roll out a fleet of self-driving taxis, something chief executive Elon Musk has said Tesla plans to introduce in coming years.

Attorneys said they would push for information on the full extent of Autopilot-related crashes and injuries as part of the discovery process.

In a call with reporters Wednesday, Fong — joined by Huang’s widow, Sevonne Huang — said the engineer had purchased the Tesla as a birthday gift after saving up. But soon after his purchase, he complained to family members about the alleged Autopilot flaws, Fong said. He also brought the car into a dealer, who initially failed to replicate the issue and told him to keep driving, Fong added.

Tesla previously said that it searched its service records and couldn’t find that Huang complained about the performance of Autopilot. Instead, the company said he complained about a navigation problem, which is unrelated to Autopilot performance. The company introduced a feature known as “Navigate on Autopilot” in October 2018, well after the crash.

Huang “believed the 2017 Tesla Model X vehicle was safer than a human-operated vehicle,” the complaint filed in court said. The suit accuses Tesla of defective product design, intentional and negligent misrepresentation and false advertising, among other allegations.

“The navigation system of Huang’s Tesla misread the lane lines on the roadway, failed to detect the concrete median, and failed to brake the car, but instead accelerated the car into the median,” the statement from attorneys said Wednesday.

“That system is not safe, is not something that should be released to the public and certainly should not be advertised as an Autopilot system,” Fong added during the call with reporters.

The family is also suing the state of California, alleging the state’s department of transportation, Caltrans, failed to replace a crash attenuator guard after a Toyota Prius 11 crashed days earlier, a component that would have better absorbed the impact of the high-speed collision. Tesla attributed the severe damage, which it described as unprecedented for the Model X, to the lack of an attenuator guard.

A Tesla spokeswoman declined to comment on the lawsuit. Caltrans said it does not comment on pending litigation.

The National Transportation Safety Board in June issued a preliminary report on the crash, concluding that the car was in Autopilot mode and Huang’s hands were detected on the wheel three times, for 34 seconds total, in the minute before the crash. Huang’s hands were not detected in the last six seconds. Autopilot issues intermittent warning cues to ensure drivers are paying attention, and the last such alert came more than 15 minutes before the crash, said NTSB.

The suit further alleged that while Tesla advertised the Model X as “state-of-the-art,” Huang’s lacked an automatic emergency braking system that could have prevented a crash into the highway barrier, despite that technology already being deployed on vehicles from other automakers, such as Chrysler, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Subaru.

The family argues Tesla and Caltrans are liable in Huang’s death and are seeking medical and hospital, funeral and burial expenses and other compensation in California Superior court.



May is Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. With warmer weather, it’s time to remind everyone to be on the alert and to share the road with motorcyclists.

Riders who have been cooped up all winter are excited to be out on the road again, but that shouldn’t stop them from using caution.

Both motorcyclists and motorists need to be aware of their surroundings. Checking blind spots, mirrors and using turn signals are necessary when changing lanes and when passing.

Distracted driving has been on the rise, too. Distractions during driving could mean the difference between seeing a motorcyclist or not when preparing to change lanes.  Don’t let one text change anyone’s life forever!

Riders need to take precautions as well. Take a defensive driving course, wear protective gear and keep your bike in its best working condition. Also, be aware of any road hazards and dangerous weather conditions.

Most of all, enjoy your ride and make it home again!

For more information visit

Supreme Court of Canada has now confirmed Strype Injury Lawyers landmark Decision in MacIvor v. Manulife which will assist disability claimants all over Canada.



Manufacturers Life Insurance Company v. Lenard MacIvor

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)


Insurance – Contracts, Interpretation – Insurance – Disability insurance – Group long term disability benefits – Coverage – Contracts – Standard form contracts – Interpretation – Whether a former employee is entitled to claim for benefits after employment and the associated group insurance coverage have ended – Whether the test for raising a new issue on appeal applies where the trial was adjudicated using a summary procedure – Whether relief from forfeiture applies to a claim that was made after coverage ended – Whether the limitation period discoverability principles apply to a claim for benefits after employment and coverage have ended.


Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. MacIvor sustained a serious back injury and brain injury during a work-sponsored trip in 2005 while covered under his employer Pitney Bowes’ group benefit policy with Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”). He was not aware of the permanent and disabling nature of his brain injury until after he resigned from his employment with Pitney Bowes in 2008. He then went to work for Samsung but continued to experience difficulties. Mr. MacIvor attempted to make a long term disability (“LTD”) claim through Samsung but was advised that he would have to make his claim through Pitney Bowes’ insurer, Manulife, as he was employed there when his injuries occurred. Mr. MacIvor’s claim was denied by Manulife in 2010. In 2011, he began an action at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice where he sought a declaration of entitlement to LTD benefits through Manulife. At the Ontario Superior Court, Pollak J. held that Mr. MacIvor was not qualified for benefits because at the time he made his claim he was not covered under the Manulife policy. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside Pollak J.’s decision. It held that Mr. MacIvor was still entitled to coverage under the Manulife policy. In addition, the court granted relief from forfeiture to correct the untimely proof of claim and found that the claim was made within the proper limitation period.Date modified:2016-05-02

Penalties for impaired driving under the new laws

Distracted Driver Fatality Accidents Toronto

Toronto Police say that in 2018, 1116 people were arrested for impaired driving related offences.

And now, impaired drivers will be impacted by new legislation that came into effect this week.

As of January 1, those who are caught using a hand-held device, such as a cell phone, while driving will be fined up to $1,000.

According to the federal government, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. In 2017, there were more than 69,000 impaired driving incidents reported by the police, including almost 3,500 drug-impaired driving incidents.

Impaired driving laws/Department of Justice

With files from Kayla Gladysz and Ainsley Smith

Read more, here: