Slip and fall injuries – especially those caused by snow and ice – are common in Ontario winters. Commercial property owners and landlords in Ontario frequently contract out snow and ice removal obligations to winter maintenance contractors. But does doing so absolve these owners and landlords of potential liability for a slip and fall?
At first blush, one might think it does, especially in light of section 6(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, which reads:
Liability where independent contractor
6 (1) Where damage to any person or his or her property is caused by the negligence of an independent contractor employed by the occupier, the occupier is not on that account liable if in all the circumstances the occupier had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to the independent contractor, if the occupier had taken such steps, if any, as the occupier reasonably ought in order to be satisfied that the contractor was competent and that the work had been properly done, and if it was reasonable that the work performed by the independent contractor should have been undertaken.[1]
(emphasis added)
However, a recent 2025 Ontario court decision makes clear that delegation is not a safeguard against liability.
In Sprowl v First Capital, an 81-year-old woman slipped on a patch of ice in the parking lot of the Bridgeport Plaza in Waterloo, Ontario and sustained a hip injury.[2] She sued the plaza owner and the winter maintenance contractor. The owner conceded that it was an “occupier” under the Occupiers’ Liability Act but argued that it met its duty of care by hiring a competent winter maintenance contractor.
To be absolved of liability, the owner needed to demonstrate two things:
- That it had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to the contractor
- That it took reasonable steps to ensure the work was properly done.[3]
For the first point, the Court was satisfied that the owner had acted reasonably in entrusting the work to the winter maintenance contractor. Indeed, the Court found that it was obvious that the winter maintenance contractor was competent, well-equipped, and resourced to do the job for which they were hired.
However, for the second point, the Court was not satisfied that the owner had taken reasonable steps to ensure the work was being properly done. The Court took issue with the fact that there was no evidence the owner had ever inspected the contractor’s work or responded to the contractor’s reports. As such, the trial judge stated that absent evidence that the owner took any step to ensure the contractor’s work was completed properly, the judge was left to conclude that the owner took no such step and therefore failed to meet their obligations under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
Conclusion and Practical Takeaways
Owners and landlords should take steps to vet winter maintenance contractors carefully to ensure a competent contractor is chosen. Contractual requirements should be clear and precise, but these cannot replace real oversight. To satisfy their obligations under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, owners and landlords should ensure that they implement and document supervision protocols to verify and evaluate the contractor’s work. Otherwise, engaging a winter maintenance contractor alone can only ever be partial, not full, risk management.
[1] Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2.
[2] Sprowl v. First Capital, 2025 ONSC 3628.
[3] Sprowl v. First Capital, 2025 ONSC 3628 at para 65.
Subscribe to RSS Feed