You Slipped. You Fell. Now What? Understanding Liability for Slip and Fall Injuries in Ontario

A wet floor in a grocery store. An icy parking lot that nobody salted. A broken step on a commercial property that the landlord kept promising to fix. A poorly lit stairwell in an apartment building. In each of these situations, a person falls, sustains injuries that may range from bruising to fractures to serious head trauma, and is left asking the same question: whose fault is this, and what can I do about it?

In Ontario, the answer to that question is governed primarily by the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, a statute that defines who owes a duty of care to people on their property, what that duty requires, and what happens when it is breached. Understanding the framework is the starting point for understanding whether you have a valid claim, who you should be making it against, and what evidence you need to support it.

The Legal Foundation: Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act

The Occupiers’ Liability Act is the statute that governs most slip and fall claims in Ontario. As Bergeron Clifford’s analysis of the Act explains, it imposes a duty on occupiers to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that persons entering their premises are reasonably safe.

The standard is reasonableness, not perfection. The law does not require that properties be hazard-free at all times; it requires that occupiers take reasonable steps to identify hazards and address them. A spill on a grocery store floor does not automatically result in liability. Whether the store had a reasonable inspection process in place and whether it responded appropriately when a hazard appeared are the questions the court will ask.

Under s. 3(1) of the Act, the duty to maintain reasonably safe premises applies whether the hazard arises from the condition of the property itself, such as an icy walkway or broken step or from an activity carried out on the property, such as a cleaning process that leaves the floor wet without adequate warning. The Supreme Court of Canada in Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 SCR 456 confirmed that mere awareness of an unsafe condition does not constitute willing acceptance of the risk a principle that prevents occupiers from defending claims simply by arguing that the hazard was visible.

Who Is an “Occupier” and Why It Matters

One of the most important and most frequently misunderstood aspects of slip and fall law in Ontario is that liability does not rest exclusively with the registered property owner. The Occupiers’ Liability Act defines an occupier broadly: any person in physical possession of premises, and any person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities carried out on them, regardless of whether there is more than one occupier of the same premises.

In practice, this means that multiple parties can bear occupier status simultaneously, and identifying all of them is one of the most consequential steps in building a successful slip-and-fall claim.

Property owners are the most obvious occupiers. Whether the property is commercial, residential, or public, the registered owner bears a duty of care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. But ownership alone does not determine liability; control does.

Tenants and lessees who occupy commercial or residential space have control over the premises they occupy and owe the same duty of care under the Act as the owner. A retail tenant whose leased store has a wet floor hazard cannot point to the landlord as the party responsible for the store’s interior maintenance.

Landlords retain occupier status under s. 8 of the Act for areas of the property they are responsible for maintaining. Common areas of apartment buildings, shared parking lots, exterior walkways, and building infrastructure all typically remain the landlord’s responsibility even when the interior units are leased to tenants. As Benchmark Legal’s analysis of occupier liability documents, the interplay between the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, is particularly relevant in residential fall cases.

Property management companies hired to manage and maintain commercial or residential properties assume occupier status through their control of the premises and their contractual responsibility for maintenance. A claim may lie against the management company rather than or in addition to the registered owner.

Snow and ice removal contractors occupy a distinct position in the liability analysis. Under s. 6 of the Act, an occupier may not be liable for the negligence of an independent contractor if the occupier acted reasonably in retaining that contractor and in supervising the work. However, if the contractor performed snow or ice removal negligently, the contractor themselves may bear direct liability for resulting injuries.

Municipalities and government bodies can also be occupiers of public sidewalks, roads, and municipal property. Claims against municipalities carry a critical difference: as Kelly Greenway Bruce’s premises liability analysis documents, written notice of the injury must be provided within just 10 days of the incident for municipal property falls. Missing that notice period can extinguish the claim entirely.

Proving Liability: What You Must Establish

The existence of a hazard does not by itself establish liability. As MacGillivray Law’s analysis of Ontario slip and fall liability explains, courts apply a two-part test drawn from Dhaliwal v. Premier Fitness Clubs Inc., 2012 ONSC 4711: first, whether the occupier had a reasonable system of maintenance in place, and second, whether the occupier actually followed that system on the day of the accident.

To succeed in a slip and fall claim, an injured person must establish four elements:

Duty of care – The occupier owed the injured person a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe. This is generally straightforward; any person lawfully entering a property is owed that duty by the occupier.

Breach of duty – The occupier failed to meet the standard of reasonable care. This requires showing that the occupier knew or ought to have known about the hazard and failed to address it within a reasonable time, or failed to have an adequate system of inspection and maintenance that would have identified the hazard. As Preszler Injury Lawyers explain, a property owner cannot assume their property is safe or be completely ignorant of potential hazards they are required to regularly inspect the premises and take appropriate steps to address issues.

Causation – The occupier’s breach of duty caused the injury. The hazard must be the reason the fall occurred, not merely a contributing background factor.

Damages – The injured person suffered actual harm as a result of the fall. This includes physical injuries, medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering.

Evidence that supports these elements includes photographs of the hazard taken immediately after the incident, maintenance and inspection logs from the property, incident reports filed at the time, surveillance footage, witness statements, and medical records documenting the nature and extent of injuries. Evidence is perishable in slip and fall cases. Surveillance footage gets overwritten, snow and ice conditions change, and hazards get repaired. Taking steps to preserve evidence as quickly as possible after a fall is critically important.

Common Defences Occupiers Raise

Understanding what defences you may face helps you and your legal team prepare for them.

Contributory negligence is the most commonly raised defence. As Berger on Clifford notes, Ontario law allows for contributory negligence, meaning if an injured person is found partially responsible for wearing inappropriate footwear, using a phone while walking, or ignoring warning signs, any damages awarded may be reduced proportionately. Ontario’s contributory negligence framework does not bar a claim entirely where the injured person was partly at fault, but it does reduce the compensation recoverable.

Voluntary assumption of risk applies where the injured person knowingly accepted the risk of the hazardous condition before entering. The Supreme Court in Waldick v. Malcolm significantly narrowed this defence, making clear that knowledge of a hazard alone does not constitute willing acceptance of the risk arising from the occupier’s non-compliance with the statute.

Reasonable maintenance is argued where the occupier contends they had an adequate system in place and followed it on the day in question. As MacGillivray Law explains, if the occupier can produce maintenance logs showing regular inspections and prompt hazard responses, the court may find they met the standard of reasonable care even if the fall occurred.

Reasonable contractor reliance under s. 6 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act provides a partial defence where the occupier retained a qualified contractor to perform maintenance and had no reason to suspect the contractor was performing inadequately.

The Notice Deadlines That Can Kill Your Claim

Slip and fall claims in Ontario are subject to strict notice requirements that many injured people do not know about until it is too late.

For falls on private property, written notice of the injury must be provided to the occupier within 60 days of the incident, delivered by registered mail as required under amendments introduced by Bill 118 to the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

For falls on municipal property, public sidewalks, city-owned parking lots, and municipal buildings, the notice period is a dramatically shorter 10 days from the date of the incident. As Kelly Greenway Bruce’s premises liability analysis confirms, the right to sue an occupier may be lost if these limitation periods are missed.

These deadlines run regardless of whether the injured person is still receiving medical treatment, regardless of whether the full extent of injuries is yet known, and regardless of whether the injured person is physically capable of taking action. This is one of the most significant reasons to contact a personal injury lawyer as soon as possible after a slip and fall, ideally within days, not weeks or months.

What Compensation Is Available in a Slip and Fall Claim

A successful slip and fall claim in Ontario can result in compensation for a range of losses. Medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, lost income during recovery, and future loss of earning capacity where injuries have affected long-term employment are all recoverable. So too is compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and the impact of the injury on relationships and daily functioning.

Where injuries are severe, the range of recoverable compensation expands significantly. A fall that results in a brain injury engages both the immediate medical and income losses and the potentially lifelong functional and vocational consequences that a catastrophic injury can produce. Spinal cord injuries resulting from falls represent some of the most devastating and highest-value personal injury claims in Ontario. In cases involving wrongful death resulting from a fall, the estate and dependents of the deceased may bring claims for both the losses the deceased suffered and the losses their dependents have sustained.

According to Statistics Canada, falls are the leading cause of injury hospitalization in Canada, a scale that reflects both how common these incidents are and how seriously the resulting injuries can affect a person’s life. The general limitation period for personal injury claims in Ontario is two years from the date of the incident.

You Know What To Do… Call Chorney Sidhu.

At Chorney Sidhu Injury Lawyers in Brampton, our team has over 20 years of experience helping Ontarians who have been injured through no fault of their own in slip and fall accidents, motor vehicle collisions, workplace incidents, and more. We know how occupiers and their insurers defend these claims, and we know how to build the evidence and legal arguments that hold them accountable.

If you have been injured in a slip and fall on someone else’s property, whether it is a store, a parking lot, a sidewalk, an apartment building, or anywhere else, do not wait. Evidence disappears, notice deadlines pass, and limitation periods run. The sooner you speak with a lawyer, the stronger your position.

We also handle car accidents, motorcycle accidents, pedestrian accidents, brain injuries, catastrophic injuries, spinal cord injuries, wrongful death, and long-term disability claims, all on a contingency basis, meaning no fees unless we win.

Contact us today for a free consultation. Call (844) 487-8482 and let us fight for what you deserve.