Occupiers’ Liability Act Explained

In Ontario, slip and fall accidents are among the most common causes of injury, often leading to hospitalizations, long-term disability, or even life-changing consequences. But when someone is injured on another person’s property, the key legal question becomes: who is responsible?

The answer lies in the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 — the statute that defines the duties of property owners, tenants, businesses, municipalities, and contractors to keep premises reasonably safe for visitors. [1]

This blog explains how the Act works, who qualifies as an “occupier,” what “reasonable care” means in practice, and how courts have interpreted liability. It also connects the Act to recent shifts in Ontario law, such as the 60-day notice rule for snow and ice accidents.

Related Resource: Slip and Fall Injury

Who Is an “Occupier” Under the Act?

The Act defines “occupier” far more broadly than just property owners. You may be legally responsible even if you don’t own the land. Courts look at who has control over the premises. This can include:

• Owners → homeowners, landlords, commercial plazas

• Tenants → businesses leasing retail space

• Property Managers / Condo Corporations → managing common areas such as lobbies, parking lots, or stairwells

• Contractors → snow removal, janitorial, or maintenance companies entrusted with safety tasks

• Municipalities → sidewalks, parks, public buildings

This means that multiple parties may share liability if a fall occurs. For example, a tenant, landlord, and snow removal contractor could all be defendants in the same case.

Legal Note: In Cairns v. Toronto Catholic District School Board (2019 ONSC 4231), a snow contractor was found partly liable when icy pavement injured a visitor, even though the school board also had responsibilities. [2]

What Does “Reasonable Care” Mean?

Section 3(1) of the Act imposes a duty on occupiers:

“An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises… are reasonably safe while on the premises.” [1]

But what counts as “reasonable” is not absolute. Courts evaluate:

• Was there a system for identifying hazards?

• Were inspections performed at reasonable intervals?

• Were hazards fixed quickly (e.g., salting ice, repairing broken steps)?

• Were warning signs posted when risks couldn’t be removed?

Case Example: In Waldick v. Malcolm (1991 SCC 55), the Supreme Court ruled that failing to salt an icy driveway — even in a rural area where it was common not to salt — still breached the duty of care. [3]

Different Standards of Duty

The Occupiers’ Liability Act generally applies the same duty of reasonable care to anyone lawfully on the property — whether they are customers, clients, or social guests. The old distinction between “invitees” and “licensees” no longer matters; both are now owed the same standard of protection.

However, there are two important exceptions: trespassers and children.

• Lawful Visitors → Occupiers owe a full duty of reasonable care to ensure the premises are reasonably safe.

• Trespassers → Occupiers owe a limited duty. They must not deliberately create danger or cause harm. Courts may still impose liability if hazards show reckless disregard for safety.

• Children → A higher duty applies because children are less cautious and more vulnerable.

Example: Property owners with swimming pools, trampolines, or playgrounds must take extra precautions — such as fences, locks, and warning signs — because children are naturally drawn to these hazards (Joyal v. Barsby, [1965] 1 O.R. 501 (Ont. H.C.J.)) [8].

The 60-Day Rule for Snow and Ice Claims

In 2021, the Act was amended by Bill 118 to create a strict new rule: victims of snow- and ice-related slip and falls must provide written notice within 60 days of the accident. [4]

The notice must include:

• The date, time, and location of the fall

• The injured person’s name and contact information

• Delivery to at least one responsible party (owner, occupier, or contractor)

Missing this deadline can bar claims, unless the victim shows a reasonable excuse (e.g., hospitalization) and the defendant is not prejudiced by the delay.

Case Example: In Chiocchio v. City of Hamilton (2021 ONSC 3835), a plaintiff who slipped on ice was initially challenged for missing municipal notice deadlines, but the court allowed her claim because she was under medical treatment and the city could not prove prejudice. [5]

Related Blog: Ontario’s 60-Day Rule for Slip and Falls Explained

Defenses Under the Act

Occupiers may defend themselves by showing they took reasonable care, or that the victim contributed to their own injury.

Common Defenses:

• Contributory Negligence → Victim wore unsafe footwear, was distracted, or ignored warnings

• Assumption of Risk → Victim knowingly entered a dangerous area

• Reasonable System → Occupier kept logs, performed inspections, and acted promptly

Case Example: In Kirkland v. Ontario Ltd. (2020 ONSC), damages were reduced by 25% because the injured person wore shoes with poor traction despite knowing conditions were icy. [6]

Recognizing Long-Term & Non-Economic Damages

Modern Ontario courts acknowledge that slip and fall injuries often extend beyond immediate fractures. Compensation can now include:

• Chronic pain and mobility issues

• Psychological harm (PTSD, depression, anxiety)

• Loss of enjoyment of life (hobbies, family, daily activities)

Case Example: In MacLeod v. Lambton (2021 ONSC), the court awarded damages not only for physical injury but also for depression and chronic pain caused by the fall. [7]

Related Service: Serious Injury Lawyers

Why the Occupiers’ Liability Act Matters

• For victims, the Act provides the legal foundation to claim compensation when injured on unsafe property.

• For property owners and managers, it’s both a warning and a roadmap: clear maintenance systems, contracts, and documentation are essential to prevent lawsuits.

At Cambria Law Firm, we help victims across Mississauga, Hamilton, Guelph, and the GTA navigate these complex claims, investigate liability, and pursue maximum compensation.

Contact us today for a free consultation — and remember, our No Win, No Fee Guarantee means you pay nothing unless we win your case.

Learn more at our Slip and Fall Injury Lawyer page

❓ FAQs About the Occupiers’ Liability Act

1. Does the Act apply only to private property?
   No. It applies to both private and public occupiers, including municipalities.

2. What happens if more than one party is responsible?
   Courts may apportion liability among owners, tenants, contractors, and municipalities.

3. Does the 60-day rule apply to all falls?
   No, it applies specifically to accidents caused by snow or ice. Other falls still follow the two-year limitation.

4. Can children sue under the Act?
   Yes, and courts often apply a higher duty of care for children.

5. What if I was partly at fault?
   You may still recover damages, but compensation can be reduced by your percentage of fault.

Learn more at Personal Injury FAQs

Sources

[1] Government of Ontario. Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o02
[2] Cairns v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2019 ONSC 4231
[3] Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 SCR 456
[4] Bill 118, An Act to amend the Occupiers’ Liability Act (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-118
[5] Chiocchio v. City of Hamilton, 2021 ONSC 3835
[6] Kirkland v. Ontario Ltd., 2020 ONSC
[7] MacLeod v. Lambton, 2021 ONSC
[8] Joyal v. Barsby, [1965] 1 O.R. 501 (Ont. H.C.J.)