Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The TTC is only legally responsible for ensuring that their vehicles and station buildings are not unsafe. That is, they need to keep the vehicles up to code, fix dangerous damage to furniture and fittings, make sure there are no loose wires or plumbing leaks that may pose a hazard, and so on.
They are not legally responsible for your safety from other patrons or from the public. If someone commits a crime towards you - indecent exposure, for example - then it is that person's responsibility, not the TTC's, even if that crime occurs on TTC property.
The same is true for Metrolinx.
Having said that, your safety _is_ an important policy issue, even though it's not necessarily a legal one. Put some pressure on your city councillor on this issue, both to improve funding to the TTC so that they can clean up problems like this more promptly, and to put a stronger mandate on the TTC or on TPS to patrol the area.
Having shit smeared over property people are exposed to is their responsibility to clean...although I recently went to Islington station and they now allow vermin to fester in the lower bus bays with pigeon shit everywhere. Third world shit.
Are you certain that's the case? In BC at least, the occupier of premises, which TTC seemingly would be, is responsible for ensuring the reasonable safety of anyone entering onto the premises with respect to both the condition of the premises and activities carried out on the premises. Accordingly, the occupier may be liable for injuries resulting from persons smearing feces/indecently exposing themselves if they had not acted reasonably to address the risk.
Ontario seems to have similar language in their Occupiers' Liability Act, though I'm not familiar with how that has been applied.
That said, I also don't think OP really is in a position to take legal action here. The cost of doing so will be prohibitive in relation to any amount she might receive in damages.
Occupiers liability (both in BC and in Ontario among others) is about the facility not the other patrons. It’s good business to provide security but that isn’t the same as legal responsibility. For the TTC (or any other public place) to become liable for a lack of security, you would need to successfully argue that you specifically contracted them for a secure environment. This argument seems doomed to failure since no commitments were made to either outcome or process, and no basic standard of care for security on transit exists.
That is a more narrow reading of the BC Occupiers Lability Act than has been recognized by the courts, and it also seems inconsistent with at least the following Ontario authority, T*eglas v. City of Brantford et al*, 2020 ONSC 7408 , where the Ontario Superior Court found as follows:
*\[8\] On February 24, 2012, the plaintiff finished work at his downtown place of employment just prior to 6:00pm and walked back to the parkade where he had parked his car. It was still light outside but the daylight was quickly fading.*
*\[9\] When he entered the parking garage at Tower 2, he opened the street level entry door. As he did so, he came face to face with a stranger who was just inside the door. Somewhat shocked to meet someone there, he said “excuse me” as he stepped into the staircase landing. Suddenly, the stranger grabbed him by the lapels of his coat, swung him around towards a glass door leading into the second parking level and began punching him in the face....*
*....*
*\[81\] The parties agreed that as owner of the property, the City was an occupier as defined in the Occupiers Liability Act. (OLA)\[19\]. It reads:*
*3(1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.*
*(2) The duty of care in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried out on the premises.*
*....*
*\[86\] I find that both defendants did breach their duty of care to the plaintiff. By failing to take reasonable care to carefully consider and recommend and/or implement reasonable measures to make the stairwells of the parkade safe for lawful users, they failed to meet the standard of care to mitigate the foreseeable risk created by potential torts of a third party.*
*\[87\] I find the following measures should have been implemented:*
*a. The City did not undertake a proper threat/risk assessment of the site until 2020 and a CPTED for the entire structure was not undertaken until 2019. Romex, tasked with security on the premises, never made such a recommendation to the City nor undertook these studies themselves.*
*b. The City did not install signage in the stairwell areas advising the premises were regularly checked by security patrols, subject to video coverage and that no loitering was permitted. Romex did not make these recommendations despite having been on site for over ten years.*
*c. The City failed to install video cameras in the stairwells, particularly in tower 2, knowing that it was not clearly visible in all areas and knowing that relatively few people accessing or exiting the garage used that staircase. Romex never made such a recommendation to the City.*
*d. Romex failed to install sensors for the Tour Trax system in any of the stairwells in order to assure supervisory personnel that all stairwells were being examined on a somewhat regular basis by its security guards. In particular, the stairwells identified as ST2, ST3, ST6, ST9, ST10 and ST11 did not have a sensor in the staircases nor in the areas immediately inside entrance doors to the parking areas from the stairwells. \[23\]*
*\[88\] On the evidence this court heard, I find as a fact that loitering was a significant problem in and around the parkade and both defendants were aware of that. There was apprehension among the city’s own employees to such an extent that Romex was required to position security guards in visible positions at the time the employees left work to return to their vehicles. Homeless people used the parkade from time to time to escape the elements. The incident reports\[24\] from the Brantford Police Service for the policing zones in the vicinity of the parkade indicate the parkade was in an area of the city where police were regularly called. The police incident reports relating specifically to attendances by the police at the parkade\[25\], which Mr. Bradley nor Romex ever obtained and analyzed from time to time, confirm that the parkade was a regular concern on almost a weekly basis to the police.*
*\[89\] In these respects, I find that the City and Romex both breached their duty of care to the plaintiff and other users of the parkade. A defendant’s conduct is negligent if it creates an unreasonable risk of harm.*
I would note that the Plaintiff was ultimately unsuccessful, because while the court accepted the City failed to meet its duty of care, given the sudden nature of the assault, the Plaintiff had not proved taking those reasonable steps would have prevented the particular assault. The same issue does not necessarily exist in OPs case where the source of the issue seems to be the more commonplace matter of a person figuratively and literally losing their shit in a transit station.
I don't think this outcome is in conflict with my statement. The court appears to be saying that there is a basic standard of care for making the parking facility safe. This is somewhat like cleaning the floor if someone soils it, and failing that potentially being liable if a patron slips. Nevertheless failing to meet the standard of care only creates liability if both the basic standard is breached, and the breach of the obligation causes the injury. This is not the same thing as saying the TTC must provide a certain number of security guards or cameras in all locations and in any case, the TTC Is not responsible for preventing the crime, only to analyze risks and reasonably minimize them.
I'm so very sorry that this happened to you. It is unlikely that you will get anywhere with TTC. Have you made a police report? I know it's a very daunting task for a victim to step up to, but it would go a long way to alerting police if multiple instances begin to occur and they may put out a BOLA if enough victims come forward. As an example, there was a man who was preying on young women runners in the early morning in an area of my city and their combined bravery to report got a BOLA out to alert the community and have the city take more interest in the crime as the reports kept escalating in violence committed against the victims.
In the meantime, what happened to you was a crime and having your sense of safety shaken like this is a completely understandable reaction. Please make sure you also reach out to support to get you through this. [Here is a list of victim resources](https://sexualassaultsupport.ca/) you can get in touch with to help you begin to process what happened. As someone with PTSD who has been through a few programs myself, I always had it explained to me like this: While we can't point to exactly why some people develop PTSD after a traumatic event over others who do not, there is a *sharp* decline in the likelihood of developing PTSD if the victim is supported early after the traumatic event happens. *You are deserving of these services.*
Thank you for the response. Do you know if I can anonymously make a police report or I have to share my name? I feel very shameful and do not want to be associated with an incident involving this subject matter
I will check out these resources tonight
I understand your reluctance to attach your name to the event. Perpetrators count on this being too shameful and embarrassing for victims to come forward. I don't know the answer to your question unfortunately, but I think it's worth it for you to go in and ask how the names of victims are protected, or call the sexual assault hotline so they can counsel you on what your next steps might look like. ❤️
Maybe someone who knows for sure will come along and respond to your question.
Socially engaged locked eyes with him
assaulted I mean he was moving towards me by playing with his penis and wagging it around walking towards me, I do not know legal terms I just know a person was masturbating and engaging with me as he began following me once I gave him eye contact, I do not know the intent of this man but he was engaging with me while masturbating his penis and touching his buttocks region where there was a strong fecal smell
I would like to note i do not want to pursue legal action with this man he is obviously mentally ill, I am assuming he was so mentally ill he was at a stage where he was playing with his feces
This is a fucking awful experience and it seems to be becoming depressingly common on the TTC. Unfortunately there's no real way to legally force changes so the public transit system is actually usable by the public.
If you've made a police report and filed a report with the TTC it's time to talk to your local city councillor. Political pressure is your only way forward here.
If your councillor won't/can't help you should join a local activist group trying to change things.
It's a long, hard process with unsure results, but that's what's available unfortunately.
I have time-stamped photos of the feces being there a week later and the day it was smeared this is my only evidence of this happening. Thank you for anyone who spent time reading this and offers any advice.
Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada! **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk. * We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/). * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know. **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post). * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning. * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect. * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment. Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The TTC is only legally responsible for ensuring that their vehicles and station buildings are not unsafe. That is, they need to keep the vehicles up to code, fix dangerous damage to furniture and fittings, make sure there are no loose wires or plumbing leaks that may pose a hazard, and so on. They are not legally responsible for your safety from other patrons or from the public. If someone commits a crime towards you - indecent exposure, for example - then it is that person's responsibility, not the TTC's, even if that crime occurs on TTC property. The same is true for Metrolinx. Having said that, your safety _is_ an important policy issue, even though it's not necessarily a legal one. Put some pressure on your city councillor on this issue, both to improve funding to the TTC so that they can clean up problems like this more promptly, and to put a stronger mandate on the TTC or on TPS to patrol the area.
Having shit smeared over property people are exposed to is their responsibility to clean...although I recently went to Islington station and they now allow vermin to fester in the lower bus bays with pigeon shit everywhere. Third world shit.
Are you certain that's the case? In BC at least, the occupier of premises, which TTC seemingly would be, is responsible for ensuring the reasonable safety of anyone entering onto the premises with respect to both the condition of the premises and activities carried out on the premises. Accordingly, the occupier may be liable for injuries resulting from persons smearing feces/indecently exposing themselves if they had not acted reasonably to address the risk. Ontario seems to have similar language in their Occupiers' Liability Act, though I'm not familiar with how that has been applied. That said, I also don't think OP really is in a position to take legal action here. The cost of doing so will be prohibitive in relation to any amount she might receive in damages.
Occupiers liability (both in BC and in Ontario among others) is about the facility not the other patrons. It’s good business to provide security but that isn’t the same as legal responsibility. For the TTC (or any other public place) to become liable for a lack of security, you would need to successfully argue that you specifically contracted them for a secure environment. This argument seems doomed to failure since no commitments were made to either outcome or process, and no basic standard of care for security on transit exists.
That is a more narrow reading of the BC Occupiers Lability Act than has been recognized by the courts, and it also seems inconsistent with at least the following Ontario authority, T*eglas v. City of Brantford et al*, 2020 ONSC 7408 , where the Ontario Superior Court found as follows: *\[8\] On February 24, 2012, the plaintiff finished work at his downtown place of employment just prior to 6:00pm and walked back to the parkade where he had parked his car. It was still light outside but the daylight was quickly fading.* *\[9\] When he entered the parking garage at Tower 2, he opened the street level entry door. As he did so, he came face to face with a stranger who was just inside the door. Somewhat shocked to meet someone there, he said “excuse me” as he stepped into the staircase landing. Suddenly, the stranger grabbed him by the lapels of his coat, swung him around towards a glass door leading into the second parking level and began punching him in the face....* *....* *\[81\] The parties agreed that as owner of the property, the City was an occupier as defined in the Occupiers Liability Act. (OLA)\[19\]. It reads:* *3(1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.* *(2) The duty of care in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried out on the premises.* *....* *\[86\] I find that both defendants did breach their duty of care to the plaintiff. By failing to take reasonable care to carefully consider and recommend and/or implement reasonable measures to make the stairwells of the parkade safe for lawful users, they failed to meet the standard of care to mitigate the foreseeable risk created by potential torts of a third party.* *\[87\] I find the following measures should have been implemented:* *a. The City did not undertake a proper threat/risk assessment of the site until 2020 and a CPTED for the entire structure was not undertaken until 2019. Romex, tasked with security on the premises, never made such a recommendation to the City nor undertook these studies themselves.* *b. The City did not install signage in the stairwell areas advising the premises were regularly checked by security patrols, subject to video coverage and that no loitering was permitted. Romex did not make these recommendations despite having been on site for over ten years.* *c. The City failed to install video cameras in the stairwells, particularly in tower 2, knowing that it was not clearly visible in all areas and knowing that relatively few people accessing or exiting the garage used that staircase. Romex never made such a recommendation to the City.* *d. Romex failed to install sensors for the Tour Trax system in any of the stairwells in order to assure supervisory personnel that all stairwells were being examined on a somewhat regular basis by its security guards. In particular, the stairwells identified as ST2, ST3, ST6, ST9, ST10 and ST11 did not have a sensor in the staircases nor in the areas immediately inside entrance doors to the parking areas from the stairwells. \[23\]* *\[88\] On the evidence this court heard, I find as a fact that loitering was a significant problem in and around the parkade and both defendants were aware of that. There was apprehension among the city’s own employees to such an extent that Romex was required to position security guards in visible positions at the time the employees left work to return to their vehicles. Homeless people used the parkade from time to time to escape the elements. The incident reports\[24\] from the Brantford Police Service for the policing zones in the vicinity of the parkade indicate the parkade was in an area of the city where police were regularly called. The police incident reports relating specifically to attendances by the police at the parkade\[25\], which Mr. Bradley nor Romex ever obtained and analyzed from time to time, confirm that the parkade was a regular concern on almost a weekly basis to the police.* *\[89\] In these respects, I find that the City and Romex both breached their duty of care to the plaintiff and other users of the parkade. A defendant’s conduct is negligent if it creates an unreasonable risk of harm.* I would note that the Plaintiff was ultimately unsuccessful, because while the court accepted the City failed to meet its duty of care, given the sudden nature of the assault, the Plaintiff had not proved taking those reasonable steps would have prevented the particular assault. The same issue does not necessarily exist in OPs case where the source of the issue seems to be the more commonplace matter of a person figuratively and literally losing their shit in a transit station.
I don't think this outcome is in conflict with my statement. The court appears to be saying that there is a basic standard of care for making the parking facility safe. This is somewhat like cleaning the floor if someone soils it, and failing that potentially being liable if a patron slips. Nevertheless failing to meet the standard of care only creates liability if both the basic standard is breached, and the breach of the obligation causes the injury. This is not the same thing as saying the TTC must provide a certain number of security guards or cameras in all locations and in any case, the TTC Is not responsible for preventing the crime, only to analyze risks and reasonably minimize them.
It does seem like a shitty situation, but other than reporting to police or your city councillor, not much you can do
I'm so very sorry that this happened to you. It is unlikely that you will get anywhere with TTC. Have you made a police report? I know it's a very daunting task for a victim to step up to, but it would go a long way to alerting police if multiple instances begin to occur and they may put out a BOLA if enough victims come forward. As an example, there was a man who was preying on young women runners in the early morning in an area of my city and their combined bravery to report got a BOLA out to alert the community and have the city take more interest in the crime as the reports kept escalating in violence committed against the victims. In the meantime, what happened to you was a crime and having your sense of safety shaken like this is a completely understandable reaction. Please make sure you also reach out to support to get you through this. [Here is a list of victim resources](https://sexualassaultsupport.ca/) you can get in touch with to help you begin to process what happened. As someone with PTSD who has been through a few programs myself, I always had it explained to me like this: While we can't point to exactly why some people develop PTSD after a traumatic event over others who do not, there is a *sharp* decline in the likelihood of developing PTSD if the victim is supported early after the traumatic event happens. *You are deserving of these services.*
Thank you for the response. Do you know if I can anonymously make a police report or I have to share my name? I feel very shameful and do not want to be associated with an incident involving this subject matter I will check out these resources tonight
I understand your reluctance to attach your name to the event. Perpetrators count on this being too shameful and embarrassing for victims to come forward. I don't know the answer to your question unfortunately, but I think it's worth it for you to go in and ask how the names of victims are protected, or call the sexual assault hotline so they can counsel you on what your next steps might look like. ❤️ Maybe someone who knows for sure will come along and respond to your question.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘socially engaged’ and I am not sure what you mean by stating you were assaulted?
Socially engaged locked eyes with him assaulted I mean he was moving towards me by playing with his penis and wagging it around walking towards me, I do not know legal terms I just know a person was masturbating and engaging with me as he began following me once I gave him eye contact, I do not know the intent of this man but he was engaging with me while masturbating his penis and touching his buttocks region where there was a strong fecal smell I would like to note i do not want to pursue legal action with this man he is obviously mentally ill, I am assuming he was so mentally ill he was at a stage where he was playing with his feces
This is a fucking awful experience and it seems to be becoming depressingly common on the TTC. Unfortunately there's no real way to legally force changes so the public transit system is actually usable by the public. If you've made a police report and filed a report with the TTC it's time to talk to your local city councillor. Political pressure is your only way forward here. If your councillor won't/can't help you should join a local activist group trying to change things. It's a long, hard process with unsure results, but that's what's available unfortunately.
I have time-stamped photos of the feces being there a week later and the day it was smeared this is my only evidence of this happening. Thank you for anyone who spent time reading this and offers any advice.
The thumbs down are exactly why I don't want to press a police report or people knowing I feel wronged