EVIDENCE Decision Provenance
City notice window closed 2026-03-16, 4 days before intake
Signature state, as it actually isDEMO KEY ONLYNOT THIRD-PARTY VERIFIED
SIGNED WITHa demo keyNot a firm key. A third party cannot rely on it.
TRUST ROOTself-publishedThe hash can be recomputed by anyone; the signer cannot yet be proved.
THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATIONnoneNo outside party has checked this record.
Signed with a demo key. Trust root self-published. Third-party verification: none.
What was checked
- Rule
- City of Toronto roads and sidewalks: written notice within 10 days
- Instrument
- City of Toronto Act, 2006, s. 42(6)
- Enforcement
- reference, routes to review or escalation
- Verification status
- SECONDARY 10-day written notice to the clerkCOUNSEL-CONFIRMS Saving subsection (reasonable excuse, no prejudice)
- Policy sources
What it rests on
| Input | Value | Basis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incident date | 2026-03-06 | From a document | |
| Intake call | 2026-03-20 | From a document | |
| Written notice to the clerk | Not on file | Missing | no document |
Deterministic reasoning
- Surface owner from a document: City of Toronto. NOTICE-WHO-01 is satisfied.
- Occurrence 2026-03-06; 10 calendar days (named assumption) closes the window 2026-03-16.
- Intake 2026-03-20 is 4 days after the window closed.
- No notice on file. A closed window routes to escalation with the saving-clause question.
The record's slots
- Confidence
- From a document
- Question
- What is the reasonable excuse for late notice, and which document shows it? (managing partner)
- Reviewer
- empty
- Tier
- SHADOW v1.0 May raise a question. Cannot block, bind or stand as authority (SHADOW-01).
- Outcome
- empty while the file is open
- Coverage
- 6 documents on file, all extracted
Evidence packFalcon
A one-page PDF a carrier or the Law Society could read, and a JSON file a machine can check. Built only from this record and its sources.
This record is in shadow. The pack says so: it raises a question and cannot stand as authority.