Trial Decision Addresses Occupiers’ and Winter Maintenance Contractors’ Obligations in Ensuring Outdoor Pedestrian Safety
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 requiring surgery. The legal issue centered on whether the plaza’s owner, First Capital (“the plaza owner”), and its contracted winter maintenance provider, Clintar Landscape Management (“the contractor”), were negligent under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. (“the Act”)
Justice I.R. Smith of the Kitchener Superior Court ultimately found that the defendants were collectively 100% liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and damages. The damages amount had been agreed upon earlier in the proceedings.
Background
The plaintiff, almost 81 years old, slipped on a patch of ice in the parking lot of a plaza in Waterloo, Ontario, on January 12, 2020. The fall caused a hip fracture requiring surgery. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, the plaza owner and the winter maintenance contractor were liable under the Act for failing to keep the property “reasonably safe.”
The parking lot was expansive comprising of six acres with multiple tenants and a busy traffic pattern. The fall occurred around 12:20 p.m. while the plaintiff was walking back to her car after shopping.
Analysis
Justice Smith’s ruling draws heavily on established principles under the Act, as well as key precedents that clarify how courts are to assess the reasonableness of occupiers’ and contractors’ conduct in winter maintenance cases.
Section 3 of the Act, establishes an occupier’s duty at the plaza in question:
3(1) 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, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.
(2) The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on the premises.
(3) The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies except in so far as the occupier of premises is free to and does restrict, modify or exclude the occupier’s duty.
Section 6 of the Act, liability where there is an independent contractor performing maintenance services at the property:
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.
At trial, the defendants acknowledged their role as “occupiers” under the Act but argued they met their standard of care. The main legal issue was whether their winter maintenance practices were reasonable.
The Court analyzed in detail the contractor’s weather monitoring, plowing and salting practices, and inspection routines. While the contractor was responsive to weather forecasts and did dispatch crews, their system was found lacking in key respects. Most notably, the Court determined that the contractor’s approach inadequately addressed risks in the parking spaces themselves.
The Court acknowledged that salting was applied primarily by the contractor’s trucks driving down laneways, which meant parked cars could block salt from reaching many spots. Critically, there was no follow-up on whether salt had reached between vehicles, and the contractor’s inspector didn’t get out of his truck to inspect on foot, a failure deemed unreasonable by the Court given that the plaintiff fell in one such unaddressed space.
One foundational principle that the Court relied on was from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Waldick v. Malcolm, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 456, where the Court emphasized that the duty under the Act is to take “such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable.” This sets a flexible but rigorous standard: occupiers must tailor their safety measures to the specific risks and conditions of their property.
The Court also leaned on Przelski v. Ontario Casino Corp., [2001] O. J. No. 3012), where the court held that isolated patches of ice in a large lot don’t necessarily amount to negligence if a reasonable system is in place. However, Justice Smith distinguished the case at bar by pointing out that the contractor’s system didn’t just miss a patch, it systematically neglected the parking spaces, which are essential to pedestrian access.
Although the Court accepted that the contractor need not meet a standard of perfection, it emphasized that there must be a functioning system ensuring reasonably safe conditions for patrons attending the plaza. The evidence showed that the system ignored substantial risks in the very spaces patrons were meant to use.
The contractor gave evidence that their site inspector didn’t exit their trucks to evaluate conditions at the plaza between vehicles or in walkways. This systemic oversight was considered a breach of the duty of care especially since the contractor’s own internal emails showed awareness of icy conditions in parking spaces at other properties in the area the morning of the incident.
As for the plaza owner, although it contracted out the winter maintenance duties to the contractor, a capable contractor by all accounts, and outlined clear expectations in the maintenance contract, Justice Smith found that the plaza owner took no independent steps to ensure the work was being properly executed. Section 6(1) of the Act requires occupiers to not only retain a competent contractor but also to ensure the work is done properly.
There was no evidence that the plaza owner ever followed up on the contractor’s performance, provided direction, or inspected the lot themselves. This passive approach meant that the plaza owner could not rely on the contractor’s competence alone as a shield against liability.
The Court rejected the argument of contributory negligence, noting that the plaintiff was wearing appropriate footwear, walking carefully, and doing nothing unreasonable when she fell.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that both the contractor and the plaza owner were negligent and in breach of their statutory duty under the Act. They were held jointly 100% responsible for the plaintiff’s damages.
Take Away
Justice Smith’s decision reinforces that the duty of care is practical, not perfectionist. What matters most is whether the occupier and contractor implemented a reasonable, functioning system to prevent foreseeable harm. In this case, although the contractor had protocols on paper and responded to weather developments, the court emphasized that execution, not just planning, is what matters. A contractor can’t merely set up general systems for an entire region and assume safety; they must ensure proper attention is paid to actual site conditions, especially in the spaces people walk through, like parking spots.
This ruling may also prompt occupiers to take a more active supervisory role and require contractors to adapt their practices for parking spaces, not just laneways and sidewalks. We may also see greater scrutiny of post-salting inspections and how site-specific observations are documented.