THE ONTARIO COURT of Appeal deserves applause for last week's unanimous decision restoring a Shelburne family's lawsuit against the Ontario government.

The civil action involves allegations that negligence on the part of the government's air ambulance service played a role in the death more than four years ago of Patrick Heaslip, 17-year-old son of Gary and Denise Heaslip.

Patrick was tobogganing at the Mansfield Ski Club at about 6 p.m. on February 4, 2005 when his toboggan struck a steel snow gun, throwing him off against a tree.

He was initially taken to the home where he had been staying and when it became clear that he was badly injured was transported by ambulance to the nearest hospital, Stevenson Memorial in Alliston.

A doctor who recognized that his injuries were life-threatening called the Medical Air Transport Centre at about 8:35 p.m., only to be told that it would be two hours before an air ambulance could be sent to take Patrick to the trauma unit at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.

As a result, a trip by land ambulance was attempted but Patrick died en route, having shown no vital signs after about 10:30 p.m.

The civil action, which also names the ski club, hospital, Simcoe county's paramedic services and several individuals as defendants, involves allegations that negligence was involved in the failure to provide timely air ambulance service.

Specifically, the Heaslips allege that:

• The ambulance service knew that Patrick had suffered a life-threatening injury;

• A nearby air ambulance that could have taken him to an appropriate hospital was carrying another patient with non-life-threatening injuries, and

• A Provincial policy for air ambulances that gave priority to those with life-threatening injuries, even if that meant diverting another patient, was not followed.

(The family also alleges that neither of Ontario's other two on-duty air ambulances in Toronto was available. One was grounded because the pilot had reached the limit of his duty hours and the other was unavailable because it required maintenance.)

In overturning the December 2008 ruling of Superior Court Justice Guy DiTomaso, the court concluded that it was at least arguable that in the circumstances Ontario owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' counsel, Adam Little of Barrie's Oatley Vigmond law firm, has suggested that only time will tell how significant the decision will be. However, our reading of the judgment leads to a conclusion that some highway accident victims may benefit from it if they can demonstrate that a highway or intersection lacked important safety devices that could and should have been provided by the Province or municipality that owned the roadway.

Writing for the appeal court, Justice Robert Sharpe concluded that the lower-court judge had applied an unduly narrow interpretation of the test for quashing statements of claim as having no chance of success, "especially in relation to a motion to dismiss the action at the pleading stage.

"While I agree that certain allegations contained in the claim assert purely public law duties and must be struck, the core of the claim advanced by the appellants is centred on a very specific set of facts that are alleged to have arisen when Ontario was asked to provide an air ambulance to carry Patrick Heaslip to a hospital capable of treating his injuries."

Justice Sharpe distinguished the facts alleged from those in cases cited by the Province, noting that in those cases, the plaintiffs "suffered harm at the hands of a party involved in an activity subject to regulatory authority, and then alleged negligence on the part of the governmental authority charged with the duty of regulating the activity that gave rise to the plaintiff's loss."

Instead, he wrote, the Heaslips' negligence claim was focused "on the specific interaction that took place between Patrick Heaslip and Ontario when the request for an air ambulance was made."

It will be interesting, indeed, to see whether the ruling will have important sequels. For instance, would the Quebec government be immune from a lawsuit launched by the family of the late actress Natasha Richardson based on its refusal to provide air ambulance service of any kind for accident victims at the Mont Tremblant ski resort?

As for Ontario, we wonder what our courts will have to say if an accident victim alleges that the provincial government has been negligent in refusing to provide electronic warnings that traffic signals are about to change at key highway intersections, or warnings in advance of intersections on busy highways that lack left-turn lanes.

If nothing else, court rulings that governments can be held liable for clearly negligent actions or inactions would surely be in the public interest, if only because they would force governments to implement safety measures found in other jurisdictions.

Thankfully, the old rule that held the Crown immune from all forms of civil liability is long gone.