<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Occupiers&#8217; Liability &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/occupiers-liability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2025 22:14:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Recreational Risks and Legal Boundaries: The Scope of Occupiers’ Liability</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/recreational-risks-and-legal-boundaries-the-scope-of-occupiers-liability/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=recreational-risks-and-legal-boundaries-the-scope-of-occupiers-liability</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/recreational-risks-and-legal-boundaries-the-scope-of-occupiers-liability/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2025 18:14:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7541</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jordan Petruska In Hudson v. Drain, 2025 ONSC 5396, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the complex interplay between common law negligence and the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (“the Act”), in the context of a recreational injury on rural property. This case arose from a serious fall suffered by the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/recreational-risks-and-legal-boundaries-the-scope-of-occupiers-liability/">Recreational Risks and Legal Boundaries: The Scope of Occupiers’ Liability</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/recreational-risks-and-legal-boundaries-the-scope-of-occupiers-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trial Decision Addresses Occupiers’ and Winter Maintenance Contractors’ Obligations in Ensuring Outdoor Pedestrian Safety</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-decision-addresses-occupiers-and-winter-maintenance-contractors-obligations-in-ensuring-outdoor-pedestrian-safety/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=trial-decision-addresses-occupiers-and-winter-maintenance-contractors-obligations-in-ensuring-outdoor-pedestrian-safety</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-decision-addresses-occupiers-and-winter-maintenance-contractors-obligations-in-ensuring-outdoor-pedestrian-safety/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 22:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7420</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jordan Petruska In Sprowl v. First Capital, 2025 ONSC 3628, trial proceeded in an action arising from a slip-and-fall incident involving an 81-year-old woman, who slipped on an icy patch in the parking lot of a plaza in Waterloo. The accident occurred on January 12, 2020, and the plaintiff sustained a serious hip injury [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-decision-addresses-occupiers-and-winter-maintenance-contractors-obligations-in-ensuring-outdoor-pedestrian-safety/">Trial Decision Addresses Occupiers’ and Winter Maintenance Contractors’ Obligations in Ensuring Outdoor Pedestrian Safety</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/trial-decision-addresses-occupiers-and-winter-maintenance-contractors-obligations-in-ensuring-outdoor-pedestrian-safety/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Watch Your Step! Suing the Landlord for Slip &#038; Fall May Not Always Fly</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/watch-your-step-suing-the-landlord-for-slip-fall-may-not-always-fly/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=watch-your-step-suing-the-landlord-for-slip-fall-may-not-always-fly</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/watch-your-step-suing-the-landlord-for-slip-fall-may-not-always-fly/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7283</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Farid Mahdi The Supreme Court of Canada, in Marguerite Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation,[1] has denied leave to plaintiffs seeking to appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s finding which confirmed that landlords in Ontario are not liable for slip and fall injuries on ice in areas used exclusively by the individual [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/watch-your-step-suing-the-landlord-for-slip-fall-may-not-always-fly/">Watch Your Step! Suing the Landlord for Slip &#038; Fall May Not Always Fly</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/watch-your-step-suing-the-landlord-for-slip-fall-may-not-always-fly/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landlord Not Responsible for Slippery Sidewalk</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-responsible-for-slippery-sidewalk/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=landlord-not-responsible-for-slippery-sidewalk</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-responsible-for-slippery-sidewalk/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7116</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Farid Mahdi In the recent decision of Burley v. City of Ottawa et. al. (“Burley”),[1] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reaffirmed that the defendant building owners did not owe their plaintiff tenant a common law duty to maintain the municipal sidewalk adjacent to their property, that they were not occupiers of the municipal [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-responsible-for-slippery-sidewalk/">Landlord Not Responsible for Slippery Sidewalk</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-responsible-for-slippery-sidewalk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liability of Landlords for Dog Bites Occurring on Their Premises</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/liability-of-landlords-for-dog-bites-occurring-on-their-premises/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=liability-of-landlords-for-dog-bites-occurring-on-their-premises</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/liability-of-landlords-for-dog-bites-occurring-on-their-premises/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2024 15:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6972</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Erin Crochetière The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently considered the liability of landlords for dog bites occurring on premises they own, in the case of Walpole v. Crisol, 2024 ONCA 400. The appellants, the Walpole family, were visiting the home of the defendants, Tammy Brush and Larry&#160;Ostertag, when their six-year-old daughter was bitten [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/liability-of-landlords-for-dog-bites-occurring-on-their-premises/">Liability of Landlords for Dog Bites Occurring on Their Premises</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/liability-of-landlords-for-dog-bites-occurring-on-their-premises/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landlord Not Liable when Tenant’s Dog Attacks</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-liable-when-tenants-dog-attacks/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=landlord-not-liable-when-tenants-dog-attacks</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-liable-when-tenants-dog-attacks/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6668</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Riley Groskopf The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released its decision on a summary judgement motion in Walpole v. Brush, 2023 ONSC 4869. The decision addresses the liability of a landlord for a dog bite on its premises, when the premises has been rented out to tenants. Facts The plaintiffs were visiting the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-liable-when-tenants-dog-attacks/">Landlord Not Liable when Tenant’s Dog Attacks</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-liable-when-tenants-dog-attacks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-96</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2022 23:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6300</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly Friday meeting, Nasra Esak discussed a recent Ontario Superior Court decision granting a summary judgement brought by the defendant in&#160;Strilchuck v. Tecumseh (Town of), 2022 ONSC 5841. Overview Justice King granted a summary judgement brought by the Town (the defendant) to dismiss a trip and fall personal injury action on the basis [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-96/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mind Your Step</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/mind-your-step/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mind-your-step</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/mind-your-step/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2022 22:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6064</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By&#160;J. Nicholas Fernandes Overview The Occupiers’ Liability Act places a positive duty on occupiers to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that persons entering upon their premises are reasonably safe when doing so. The duty of care in each case is fact specific and takes into consideration, amongst other things, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/mind-your-step/">Mind Your Step</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/mind-your-step/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Landlord Not Permitted to Rely on Waiver Clause in Residential Lease</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-permitted-to-rely-on-waiver-clause-in-residential-lease/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=landlord-not-permitted-to-rely-on-waiver-clause-in-residential-lease</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-permitted-to-rely-on-waiver-clause-in-residential-lease/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2022 13:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5929</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The decision in Lewis v. 3414493 Canada Inc., 2022 ONSC 2769, involves a slip and fall accident in the parking lot of an apartment building. The plaintiff is a tenant of the building. The defendant landlords relied on a waiver clause in the tenancy agreement. The waiver indicated that the landlord shall not be liable [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-permitted-to-rely-on-waiver-clause-in-residential-lease/">Landlord Not Permitted to Rely on Waiver Clause in Residential Lease</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/landlord-not-permitted-to-rely-on-waiver-clause-in-residential-lease/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Claim Arising From Slip and Fall at Courthouse Dismissed</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/claim-arising-from-slip-and-fall-at-courthouse-dismissed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=claim-arising-from-slip-and-fall-at-courthouse-dismissed</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/claim-arising-from-slip-and-fall-at-courthouse-dismissed/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2022 23:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupiers' Liability]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5894</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In Martin v. AGO et al, 2022 ONSC 1923, the plaintiff, a lawyer, attended at the Hamilton courthouse and slipped on a small amount of water.  It was raining on the day of the accident, and the water on the floor came from a wet umbrella of a visitor to the courthouse. A day porter [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/claim-arising-from-slip-and-fall-at-courthouse-dismissed/">Claim Arising From Slip and Fall at Courthouse Dismissed</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/claim-arising-from-slip-and-fall-at-courthouse-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
