Scott was out for a ride on his motorbike on a rainy day when he was in accident. He claimed the accident occurred in a work zone along a wooden bridge on a rural highway. When he filed his claim with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure he indicated that he was concerned about the signage leading up to the work zone because there was nothing to alert motorists of the change in road surface from asphalt to wood. He received a letter from the ministry denying his claim. Unsatisfied with the response, Scott contacted our office.

In reviewing Scott’s correspondence with the ministry, we found that there was limited information available about the review process and reasons for denying the claim. The ministry told us they had forwarded Scott’s complaint to the contractor responsible for the area where the accident occurred. The contractor denied responsibility for the accident, indicating the signage met the applicable standards.

In response to Scott’s concerns about the contractor’s denial, the ministry requested the contractor’s records. It further sought the advice of senior engineers to confirm that the work zone signage met the applicable standards and to determine whether warning signs to alert motorists on the bridge would have been beneficial. The engineers determined the signage was sufficient.

Based on our review, we had outstanding concerns that the reasons for the denial omitted references to the policies and standards relied upon to deny the claim. As a result of our investigation, the ministry agreed to improve instructions and guidelines for how contractors respond to claims. The ministry also agreed to use plain language, reference specific maintenance standards in their decisions, provide clearer details about the Freedom of Information process and share links to the ministry’s general maintenance standards available through its website.

While Scott’s own outcome didn’t change, the claims response process will be better for others as a result.