Occupiers' Liability Act Ontario: for lawyers, landlords, and lessees

Property law has a way of surprising people. Under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act (the OLA), you don’t even need to own a building to be legally responsible for what happens inside it or around it. As such, the question of who carries the risk has less to do with whose name is on the title deed and more to do with who actually runs the place.

Who counts as an occupier under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act?

The definition of “occupier” under the Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario is deliberately wide. Under s. 1 of the OLA, an occupier is either:

• a person in physical possession of premises, or
• a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of the property, its activities, or who is allowed to enter

The key principle is that control triggers occupier status, and not ownership. This means that a party can be an occupier without holding title, without a lease, and even without being physically present when an injury occurs.

Occupier: who controls the property

The case of Cornwall v. Al Bloushi, 2022 ONSC 6388, illustrates just how far this can stretch. Here, a company placed a donation bin on City-owned property without the City’s permission. When the plaintiff slipped and fell near the bin, the court found the bin’s owner to be an occupier, and not the City.

The court pointed to several factors:

• the company invited members of the public onto the property to access the bin
• it employed independent contractors to inspect the area daily or every other day
• it responded to complaints about the condition of the area around its bins
• it placed a decal on the bin reading “Our Bins are Maintained By” which means they actively claims responsibility for the space

The court said that “the imposition of obligations under occupiers’ liability depends on control rather than title,” and that occupier status does not require exclusive possession or control.

Learn more about Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, including the limitation periods for slip and fall injuries, with this video:

Check out our article on “Personal injuries proceedings act: Limits, notices, and traps” to learn about the factors that lawyers and litigants should not miss in these cases.

More than one occupier at once

The Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario also makes clear that a single set of premises can have multiple occupiers simultaneously. In commercial leasing, for example, a landlord may remain an occupier of common areas (e.g., lobbies, stairwells, parking lots) while the tenant occupies the leased interior.

Where maintenance responsibilities under a lease are unclear, both parties may find themselves named as occupiers, with liability allocated by asking: who had control over the specific condition that caused the harm?

Even a snow removal contractor can be deemed an occupier. In Musa v. Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 255, 2023 ONCA 605, the court confirmed that where a condominium had wholly delegated its winter maintenance to a contractor, that contractor was deemed an occupier of the property for purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario. In other words, the contractor’s obligation ran directly to the residents who were injured on the cleared roadway.

Does a warning actually discharge an occupier’s duty of care?

Under s. 3(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario, an occupier owes a duty to take “such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable” to see that persons on the premises are reasonably safe.

A warning can be part of meeting that standard. However, it is not automatically enough.

Whether the occupier acted reasonably

The court addressed this directly in T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. v. Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd., 2026 ONCA 371. In that case, a worker was driving wide agricultural equipment across a farm bridge. The outer three feet on either side of the bridge were completely unsupported by steel beams below, which is a hidden structural defect.

The trial judge found that a warning to “stay in the centre of the bridge” would have been irrelevant, since the worker already knew this. On that narrow point, the Court of Appeal agreed.

But the Court found the trial judge had drawn the analysis too narrowly. The real question was whether the warning disclosed the actual hidden danger: that the outer portions of the bridge had no structural support at all.

That information was what the worker needed to make an informed decision about whether to cross with the equipment. Without it, there was no genuine opportunity to assess or accept the risk.

The Court confirmed that the absence of a warning is a factor in the overall s. 3(1) analysis. It does not stand alone as a separate cause of action, but feeds into whether the occupier acted reasonably in the circumstances.

When is a warning enough under the OLA

Courts ask several things in deciding whether a warning was adequate:

• Was it visible before the person reached the hazard?
• Did it describe the actual risk, not just flag a general danger?
• Was the hazard temporary and incapable of being fixed immediately?
• Was the warning combined with a broader reasonable inspection system?

The 2022 decision in Martin v. AGO et al, 2022 ONSC 1923, is useful here. A lawyer slipped on a nearly invisible water spill, which is about the size of a quarter, in the lobby of the Hamilton Court House. As the court dismissed the claim, it held that the occupier had:

• a day porter conducting floor inspections at least four times per shift
• a work order system for immediate reporting of hazards
• mats placed at all three public entrances
• six wet floor signs posted throughout the ground floor

The court stated that “the standard is not one of perfection” and does not require “constant surveillance and instant response.” The inspection system, taken as a whole, was adequate for the nature and traffic of that specific building.

If you’re an injured person, below is a video explaining what happens if somebody is injured on your property under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act:

Check out Canadian Lawyer’s Special Report on Canada’s Best Personal Injury Law Firms for a list of the country’s leading personal injury boutiques and firms.

What duty do occupiers owe to trespassers under Ontario’s OLA?

The full occupier’s duty under s. 3 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario does not apply to trespassers. Instead, what applies is s. 4, which substitutes a significantly lower standard.

Under s. 4(1), an occupier must not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm, and must not act with reckless disregard of the trespasser’s presence. This is what practitioners sometimes call the “wilful misconduct threshold.”

The OLA goes further with s. 4(2). It states that a person who enters premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, a criminal act is deemed to have willingly assumed all risks. It means that only the s. 4(1) residual duty applies.

This is extended to recreational trespassers on specified types of land under the OLA’s s. 4(3). A person is also deemed to have assumed all risks where:

• entry is prohibited under the Trespass to Property Act (TPA)
• the occupier has posted no notice in respect of entry and has not expressly permitted it
• entry is for recreational purposes with no fee charged (with limited exceptions for government or non-profit payments)

As listed in s. 4(4), the specified premises where this applies include:

• rural agricultural land
• forested or wilderness areas
• vacant or undeveloped land
• golf courses when not open for play
• utility rights-of-way
• unopened road allowances
• recreational trails reasonably marked as such
• portage routes

What actually crosses the line

The wilful misconduct threshold is deliberately high, and ordinary negligence does not satisfy it. Even serious carelessness, in most circumstances, will not meet it.

What courts look for is either a subjective intention to harm, or a conscious indifference to a known risk, where the occupier turned their mind to the danger and proceeded regardless.

In practical terms, setting a trap to injure trespassers, or concealing hidden barbed wire on land the occupier knows people cross, could meet this standard. On the other hand, failing to inspect, failing to repair, or leaving a passive hazard in place generally will not.

When does the 60-day notice rule apply, and can you miss it?

The Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario, under s. 6.1, has imposed a strict procedural requirement for claims involving personal injury caused by snow or ice on private property.

Under s. 6.1(1), no action can be brought unless written notice is served within 60 days of the occurrence on at least one of the following:

• the occupier of the premises
• any independent contractor employed to remove snow or ice during the relevant period

The notice must include the date, time, and location of the injury.

Once notice reaches any one of those parties, the limitation on bringing the action is lifted, even for defendants who did not originally receive the notice, per s. 6.1(7).

Exceptions to the non-compliance of procedural requirement

Failure to comply can bar the claim entirely. However, there are two exceptions under s. 6.1(5) and (6):

• the injured person died as a result of the injury
• a judge finds a reasonable excuse for the failure or insufficiency of notice, and the defendant is not prejudiced in its defence

This 60-day window is separate and much shorter from the general two-year limitation period under the provincial Limitations Act. It also operates independently of the 10-day municipal notice requirement under the Municipal Act, which applies where the injury occurs on a public sidewalk or municipal property.

Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario: the ground beneath the title

The Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario does not start nor end with whoever holds the deed; rather, it starts with whoever has the control. A contractor, a bin company, a property manager, or a tenant can each find themselves standing where the registered owner might expect to stand: in the defendant’s chair.

Bookmark Canadian Lawyer’s Personal Injury page for more articles on provincial personal injury laws, aside from the Occupiers’ Liability Act of Ontario.