Nova Scotia court dismissed slip and fall on school playground gravel

A mother watches her daughter play at a school playground, steps off the equipment area, and breaks her leg. While it sounds like a clear-cut case, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court did not see it that way.

In Sabiston v. Halifax Regional Centre for Education, 2026 NSSC 274, the court dismissed the slip and fall claim, finding that scattered gravel on dirt does not meet the bar for an actionable hazard.

Whether a slip and fall on school grounds automatically mean liability

On June 8, 2017, Tara-Rose Sabiston was at Cavalier Drive Elementary School in Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia. She stepped over the wooden cribbing at the northern end of the school playground onto exposed dirt, dropped about six inches, and broke her lower right leg when the ground gave way.

By the time the case reached trial, the parties had agreed on the damages. The only question left was about the liability.

The court dismissed the action, finding Sabiston failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence under Nova Scotia’s Occupiers’ Liability Act (OLA). Under s. 4(1) of the OLA, occupiers must take reasonable care to see that people on the premises are reasonably safe. However, the standard is reasonableness, and not perfection.

Below are some of the important facts that weighed against Sabiston:

• the route was well-travelled and used safely by many adults, including school staff, for years
• no one had ever fallen or been injured at that spot before
• the school’s vice-principal said he had personally exited at the same location “many many times” without incident
• the school caretaker testified there had never been a prior adult injury there
• Sabiston was a frequent visitor, and was familiar with the layout, the cribbing, and the route

When a migrated gravel becomes an actionable hazard

Sabiston argued that the pea stone gravel migrated from the playground into the spot where she fell, creating a slipping hazard. Yet, the court found the facts did not support this.

As such, the court drew a sharp distinction between two very different surfaces:

• gravel on hard surfaces such as asphalt and concrete: a known and managed hazard, and for this reason, the Halifax Regional Municipality regularly swept the pea stone off the asphalt
• gravel on exposed dirt: this is not an inherent hazard, since the dirt was soft enough that stones became embedded in it, and the gravel would not roll the way it would on a hard surface

The spot where Sabiston fell was primarily exposed dirt with a small scattered mix of gravel. Her forward momentum caused the ground to give way, which is an ordinary outdoor condition, and not a legally cognizable hazard.

What the plaintiff’s expert got wrong

As the plaintiff, Sabiston called James Saunders, an expert in playground safety and the CAN/CSA-Z614 National Standard of Canada for Children’s Playground Equipment and Surfacing. Unfortunately, his evidence backfired on two fronts:

• first, Saunders confirmed that pea stone migrating outside a playground is a commonplace and expected occurrence, undercutting the argument that its presence was unusual or hazardous
• second, the court found serious gaps in his methodology, since he never attended the site, did not review photographs taken six days after the accident — the most contemporaneous evidence available — and relied instead on photos taken months later

The court even preferred the defendant’s fact witnesses over Saunders. For counsels working for the plaintiff in similar cases, this case presented the principle that an expert who has not seen the scene, and has not reviewed the best available evidence, will struggle against witnesses who were actually there.

Bookmark Canadian Lawyer’s Personal Injury page for more news, articles, and updates for Canadian legal professionals.