Wintertime slips and falls are a common reality of living in Canada with the slippery conditions that happen every winter. Some falls can be prevented through proper winter maintenance. It is therefore very important for Canadian lawyers who practice in this area to be knowledgeable about how and when those winter maintenance obligations are breached, causing injuries that ought to be compensated.
A leading case in this area of law, and one we should all be familiar with, is the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 456. In that case, the court found the occupiers could have anticipated the dangerous condition of the parking area due to the icy conditions (i.e., it was foreseeable) but did nothing to make it safer. They were found liable in negligence for doing nothing to render the parking area entrance to their house less slippery.
The Supreme Court in Waldick confirmed that slip and fall cases are highly fact-driven. Relevant factors include, among other things, the weather, the time of year, the cost of preventive measures, the quality of the footwear worn by the visitor, and the nature of the property.
In Musa v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 255 et al., 2022 ONSC 1030, the condominium corporation hired a snow removal company to plow a pathway in the snow for visitors to access the building and its surrounding area. The Court found that to meet its affirmative duty imposed by the Occupier’s Liability Act, the defendant was required to see that road salt was applied when the snow was plowed to create a walking path or to ensure no ice formed on the path. The occupier failed to do so and thereby created a slip and fall hazard for the plaintiff. The defendant was found liable in this case and was required to pay the plaintiff $65,000 in damages and $100,000 plus tax towards his legal costs.
Chambers v. Remnant Tabernacle, 2022 ONSC 1482 was a summary judgment motion where the defendant asked the Court to find there was no triable issue. The court found that the defendant church failed to maintain their salt supply by only purchasing salt once per year. Further, the church relied partly on volunteers with no training. The church argued that there was a salt shortage, however the Court found there were other, cost-effective measures available to them, such as applying sand or breaking the ice. Finally, the Court found that the system that the church had was not functioning, evidenced firstly by the lack of available salt. The summary judgement motion failed.
In Cannon v. Cemcor Apartments Inc., 2016 ONSC 2828, the plaintiff slipped on ice at a Northern Ontario apartment. The court found that the occupier had a reasonable winter maintenance policy in place and that it had been followed on the day of the fall. Although there was an isolated area where the lot was slippery, this was not enough to establish liability.
In Canada, winters can be treacherous but that does not mean that an occupier is absolved of its responsibility to keep its visitors safe. Case law tells us that occupiers are required to have a snow removal system in place, and the system must be working. If, this winter, you fall on the premises of an occupier and sustain injuries, consider reaching out to a lawyer with any questions you may have.
