What is the impact of a policy/operational discussion in an action for negligence?

The policy/operational discussion that is well established in actions for negligence was not directly argued in this case, though the submissions of the City are consistent with the position of no liability based on policy decisions and, in my view, it is implicit in the discussion of the Chief Justice. As an aside, I would note that Just v. British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228 and Rothfield v. Manolakes, 1990 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R 1259 were released the same day as Tock but Tock makes no reference to the policy/operational question nor does it suggest that liability for nuisance might be limited because the conduct giving rise to the claim resulted from a policy decision.