Ontario Slip and Fall Law: A Practical Guide to Occupiers' Liability

The Legislative Framework

Slip and fall claims in Ontario are governed primarily by the Occupiers' Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2 (OLA). The OLA replaced the common law categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser with a unified statutory duty of care. Section 3(1) requires an occupier to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises are reasonably safe while on the premises.

This reasonable care standard is contextual. Courts assess what a reasonable occupier would have done, given the nature of the premises, foreseeability of harm, and the practicality of precautions.

Who Is an Occupier?

Section 1 of the OLA defines an occupier broadly as a person who is in physical possession of premises or has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises, activities conducted there, or persons allowed to enter. Critically, multiple parties can be co-occupiers simultaneously — a landlord, property manager, and commercial tenant may all be occupiers with concurrent liability.

In Waldick v Malcolm [1991] 2 SCR 456, the Supreme Court confirmed that the occupier's duty cannot be contracted out of for personal injury to non-trespassing visitors (s. 3(3) OLA). Control is the central factor — if you have the ability to remedy a hazard, you may be an occupier.

Standard of Care: What Plaintiffs Must Prove

To succeed in an OLA claim, a plaintiff must establish:

1. The defendant was an occupier of the premises;
2. The plaintiff was a lawful entrant (not a trespasser);
3. There was a hazardous condition on the premises;
4. The occupier knew or ought to have known of the hazard;
5. The occupier failed to take reasonable steps to remedy or warn; and
6. The failure caused the plaintiff's injury.

Constructive knowledge is sufficient — a store that fails to inspect its floor for an hour before a slip is liable even if no employee saw the liquid. The question is how long the hazard existed and whether a reasonable inspection system would have caught it.

Winter Maintenance and Snow/Ice Claims

Winter slip and fall claims are among the most common in Ontario. The standard of care for outdoor surfaces depends on the type of premises:

• Residential landlords — must maintain walkways, parking lots, and common areas in a reasonably safe condition. Failure to sand or salt after a freezing rain event within a reasonable time is actionable.
• Commercial occupiers — typically expected to implement and follow a written snow and ice removal program. In Stewart v Pettie [1995] 1 SCR 131, the Supreme Court held a bar owner liable for a patron who fell on ice outside because the occupier had control of the area.
• Industrial premises — often higher standards given volume of pedestrian traffic and ability to implement robust maintenance programs.

Key evidence in winter claims: maintenance logs, Environment Canada weather records, photographs taken shortly after the fall, incident reports, and contractor records showing the last salt/sand application.

Municipal Liability

Claims against municipalities for sidewalk and road conditions are governed not only by the OLA but also by the Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25.

Minimum Maintenance Standards (O.Reg. 239/02) provide a safe harbour for municipalities that comply with their inspection and maintenance requirements. If a municipality shows MMS compliance, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the standard itself was inadequate — a high bar under s. 44(3.1) of the Municipal Act.

Contributory Negligence

Ontario's Negligence Act, RSO 1990, c N.1, allows courts to apportion fault between plaintiff and defendant. Common contributory negligence findings:

Damages

• General damages — pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life. In serious falls (hip fractures, spinal injuries), damages can approach the Andrews cap (~$440,000 in 2025).
• Special damages — past medical expenses, assistive devices, home modifications.
• Past income loss — documented through tax returns and employment records.
• Future care costs — quantified through an OT future care cost report, present-valued by an economist.
• Future income loss — relevant where injuries affect long-term employment capacity.

Limitation Periods

The standard 2-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applies, running from the date the plaintiff discovered (or ought to have discovered) the claim.

• Minors: Limitation does not run against a minor until age 18 or appointment of a litigation guardian (s. 6 Limitations Act, 2002).
• Municipalities: The 10-day notice requirement operates separately from the 2-year limitation period.
• Crown entities: Claims subject to the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, RSO 1990, c P.27.

Investigation Checklist (First 30 Days)

• Photograph the scene, hazard, footwear worn, and injuries;
• Secure surveillance footage before it is overwritten (typically 30-day retention);
• Obtain incident report filed by the occupier;
• For municipal claims: serve 10-day written notice immediately;
• Request maintenance logs, inspection records, and contractor invoices;
• Obtain Environment Canada weather data for the date and time of fall;
• Identify all possible occupiers and co-defendants;
• Consider a biomechanical engineer or slip resistance expert if causation is contested.