Category: Occupiers' Liability

The plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of a slip and fall incident in the parking lot of the defendant’s store. At trial, the jury found that the defendant took such reasonable care in all the circumstances to see that the plaintiff was reasonably safe while on the premises. The defence led evidence that: there had been a major winter storm; that the snow removal contractor had plowed and salted the parking lot before the incident; and that any attempts to re-attend could have made matters worse and could have created safety concerns due to the presence in the parking lot of pedestrians and other cars. The plaintiff testified three times that she had no idea why she fell and failed to testify at any time that she slipped on any ice. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that there was no evidence that would have supported the jury’s verdict. In dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal and upholding the trial decision, the Court of Appeal noted that the test for setting aside a jury’s verdict is extremely high. It requires a court to conclude that the verdict is “so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the Court that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have reached it”. The appellant did not meet this test.

The plaintiff attended the defendant strip mall on a summer afternoon. After parking her car, she walked towards the store she intended to attend. In order to access the store, she needed to traverse the sidewalk that ran in front of all stores in the plaza, which was raised above the roadway. The plaintiff tripped and fell over the sidewalk’s curb. She commenced an action for damages, alleging that the defendant proprietors of the plaza failed to meet the applicable standard of care with respect to the design of the curb. The defendant moved for summary judgment. Justice Copeland granted summary judgment and dismissed the action, holding that the curb appeared to be an ordinary sidewalk curb which a pedestrian could encounter in a variety of locations in the greater Toronto area. The curb did not contravene any bylaws or building standards; it was in a good state of repair; and it was clearly visible to approaching pedestrians.

The plaintiff sustained injuries while exiting an elevator in a condominium building. She alleged that the elevator was not level with the ground when she exited. The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action. Justice Brown granted summary judgment for all defendants. With respect to the condominium corporation and the property manager, Justice Brown held that they had reasonable systems in place to ensure that the elevators were Code compliant. They had entered into service contracts for the provision of monthly preventative maintenance and retained a security company to inspect the premises at all times, including the general functioning of the elevators. With respect to the security company, Justice Brown held that there was no evidence to indicate that it was negligent in its duties. Upon becoming aware of the issue with the elevator, it took the elevator out of service and notified the superintendent. With respect to the elevator maintenance contractor, Justice Brown found that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the contractor’s maintenance regime was not Code compliant, nor that the regime was not being followed. There was no evidence that its conduct fell below the standard of care. Justice Brown dismissed the action.

A minor plaintiff was injured on an escalator at Bramalea City Centre. The injuries caused the plaintiff to lose multiple fingers. The defendant TSSA brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff in respect of the frequency of its inspections. TSSA admitted that it did owe the plaintiff a duty of care in respect of performance of inspections, but argued that it met the requisite standard of care. Justice Faieta dismissed the TSSA’s motion, holding that this was not a clear case for the grant of partial summary judgment because it would not result in fair and just determination on the merits. The allegations of fault against the TSSA contained in the statement of claim were not clearly severable from the balance of the case against the remaining defendants, which would remain even if partial summary judgment were granted. To grant summary judgment would also raise the risk of inconsistent findings in relation to the adequacy of the frequency of inspections, the performance of inspections, action taken following inspections, and the condition of the escalator prior to the incident. Justice Faieta held that the most sound and efficient approach in the circumstances was for the matter to proceed to trial so that the trier could determine the issues with a full perspective.

The plaintiff was a government lawyer who slipped and fell in the kitchenette of her office as a result of water that had leaked out from under the sink from a hot water dispenser. Following a trial, Justice Roger dismissed the action, holding that the defendants had in place a reasonable cleaning and inspection regime as well as a call service that would alert them of any issues in the kitchenette. He rejected the evidence of the plaintiff’s expert, who had not attended the premises and did not conduct any slip testing. He accepted the evidence of the defendant’s expert, who conducted testing to measure the floor’s slip resistance. Despite dismissing the claim, Justice Roger went on to consider the issues of causation and damages. He found that the plaintiff’s psychological impairments largely predated the incident. He held that in the event the plaintiff was awarded damages, the defendant would not be permitted to deduct any LTD benefits the plaintiff received as a result of the private insurance exception to the common law principles regarding deduction of collateral benefits. Finally, Justice Roger held that had the plaintiff been successful on the issue of liability, he would have awarded the plaintiff general damages in the sum of $80,000, and damages for past loss of income in the sum of $290,562.

The plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of tripping on a speed bump in a parking lot owned by the defendant and commenced an action for damages. The parties agreed on damages and the matter proceeded to trial for determination of liability. The plaintiff admitted that she did not know what caused her to trip and fall. She testified that there was a piece missing from the speed bump, which was “maybe” where she tripped and fell. The Court affirmed that an inference of causation must be based on fact rather than speculation and held that the plaintiff failed to establish that any act or omission on the part of the defendant occupier caused her injury. The action was dismissed.

The elderly plaintiff slipped and fell on an elevated walkway adjacent to the parking lot of a seniors’ centre owned and operated by the defendant. The plaintiff attributed the cause of her fall to the absence of a yellow caution line demarcating the walkway from the parking lot. The plaintiff’s human factors expert concluded that the edge should have been marked by a cautionary line. The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff’s expert liability evidence was not particularly helpful as it provided an opinion on a matter that does not require specialized skill or knowledge.