Martin v AGO et al.: The Standard of Care Required of an Occupier is not One of Perfection

Martin v AGO et al.: The Standard of Care Required of an Occupier is not One of Perfection

By: Lujza Csanyi

In Martin v AGO et al.[1], the Ontario Superior Court reiterated that the standard of care required of an occupier under Section 3(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (the “Act”) is one of reasonableness and not perfection. Although the standard of care is fact-specific, occupiers are not responsible for eliminating every conceivable form of danger on the premises.[2]

Facts

On a rainy summer day, the plaintiff slipped and fell on the ground floor of the John Sopinka Courthouse in Hamilton, tearing his hamstring in the process.[3] The fall was caused by what the parties agreed was a “small amount of water” that had accumulated on the ground from another visitor’s wet umbrella.[4]

The plaintiff brought an action for damages, claiming that the owner, property manager, and contractor responsible for performing janitorial services breached the standard of care required under section 3(1) of the Act, and were otherwise negligent in patrolling and cleaning the hallways.[5]

At trial, the Court considered two key issues[6]:

1. Whether the defendants breached the standard of care; and

2. If so, whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

Did the Defendants Breach the Standard of Care?

On the facts of the case, Justice Valente found that the occupier had met the standard of care, as it had a sufficient system for inspection and maintenance in place.

The Court held that the day porter’s inspection of the floors four times per shift was adequate in the circumstances. The courthouse was unlike a large and busy restaurant, where more frequent inspections are required due to traffic flow.[7] Moreover, the courthouse had a work order system that permitted any member of the public to report a matter requiring immediate attention, including a spill.[8] Lastly, the use of large industrial mats and six wet caution signs posted on the floor all supported the conclusion that the requisite standard of care had been met.[9]

However, in any event, even if the standard had not been met, the plaintiff failed to prove that his fall could have been avoided through a more vigilant system of surveillance.[10] This was demonstrated by the fact that the water at issue was equivalent to a melted ice cube, and was imperceivable by at least six other people who had walked over the area in question without issue prior to the fall.[11]

Was the Plaintiff Contributorily Negligent?

Ultimately, the Court also determined that even if the defendants were liable, the plaintiff would be 30% at fault for the accident for having worn shoes with smooth, partially worn down soles.[12]

Conclusions

This decision highlights that plaintiffs who slip and fall on an occupier’s premises are not automatically entitled to compensation, particularly where an occupier implements and follows a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance.[13] Equally, this decision serves as a reminder that owners and occupiers should maintain careful record keeping regarding the actions it takes to inspect and maintain its premises to protect against legal action.

[1] 2022 ONSC 1923.

[2] Ibid at paras 43-46.

[3] Ibid at para 1.

[4] Ibid at para 27.

[5] Ibid at para 1.

[6] Ibid at para 6.

[7] Ibid at para 52.

[8] Ibid at para 54.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid at para 56.

[11] Ibid at para 58.

[12] Ibid at paras 63-64.

[13] Ibid at para 58.

Insights & Commentary

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties - photo
  • Commentaries

From Settlement to Stay: The Ontario Court of Appeal Affirms the Importance of Prompt Disclosure of Settlement Information to Related Parties

By Grace Murdoch In its recent decision, Skymark Finance Corporation v Ontario, 2023 ONCA 234[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal took the opportunity to comment on the importance of immediate disclosure of settlement minutes to other parties in an action and to clarify the meaning of the phrase “to change the entirety of the litigation … Continued

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits? - photo
  • Commentaries

When are Insurers Required to Provide Medical Reasons for the Denial of Statutory Accident Benefits?

By Lujza Csanyi An insurer may discontinue an insured’s entitlement to benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule[1] (“the SABS”) pursuant to any of the specified grounds enumerated under section 37(2). If the insurer determines that the insured is ineligible for benefits on the basis of any of these grounds, section 37(4) requires the insurer … Continued

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis - photo
  • Commentaries

Vitriol or Value? ONCA Provides Direction on Anti-SLAPP Analysis

By Landan Peleikis Introduction In Thorman v. McGraw,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified section 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and further narrowed the class of public expression deemed worthy of protection under Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation. Background In December 2013, the respondent entered into an agreement with the appellants to renovate her bathroom. … Continued

SPECT Scans: Ontario Courts’ Grapple with a “Novel” Evidentiary Tool - photo
  • Commentaries

SPECT Scans: Ontario Courts’ Grapple with a “Novel” Evidentiary Tool

By: Grace Murdoch Introduction In recent years, single-photon emission computerized tomography scans (otherwise known as “SPECT” scans) have been the subject of debate in Ontario’s court rooms when evaluating brain injury claims. Whether the conclusions resulting from such scans can be admitted into evidence and for what purpose are increasingly becoming important questions in personal … Continued

Limitation Periods where a Defendant is Undertaking Ameliorative Efforts – The Latest Word from the Ontario Court of Appeal - photo
  • Commentaries

Limitation Periods where a Defendant is Undertaking Ameliorative Efforts – The Latest Word from the Ontario Court of Appeal

By Lujza Csanyi In Amelin Engineering Ltd. v Blower Engineering Inc.[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that although ameliorative efforts may toll a limitation period, the “modified objective test” under section 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002[2] (the “Limitations Act”) continues to apply. Thus, even where a potential defendant is attempting to remedy a … Continued

All News