Canada Slip and Fall Laws: Liability and Compensation

In Canada, slip and fall liability turns on negligence. Most provinces have occupiers' liability legislation requiring occupiers to keep premises reasonably safe for lawful visitors, and the rest run on the common law of negligence or, in Quebec, the Civil Code. To succeed, you must prove the occupier owed a duty of care, breached it, and that the breach caused your injury. Notice deadlines run fast and vary by province.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Canadian slip and fall liability at a national level, with worked examples from Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001 and Occupiers' Liability Act, British Columbia's Occupiers Liability Act and Local Government Act, Alberta's Occupiers' Liability Act, the federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and the Criminal Code. Provincial and territorial rules differ, and on the questions covered here they differ in substance and not only in wording. Use the province and territory list below for the law that applies where you fell.

What happens if someone slips, trips, or falls on public property in Canada?

Municipalities and government departments in Canada can be sued for injuries on public property, but only where a statute imposes the duty and the claimant proves negligence. Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001 makes a municipality responsible for keeping its highways and bridges in a reasonable state of repair, and the federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act makes the federal Crown liable as if it were a person. Read that federal Act narrowly. Section 2 defines Crown to mean "Her Majesty in right of Canada," so it reaches federal departments and agencies only. A claim against a provincial ministry runs under that province's own Crown liability statute instead, which in Ontario is the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019. If you suffer injury through no fault of your own in a public space, you may claim damages, which can include:

• Lost wages and future income
• Physical pain
• Pain and suffering
• Mental anguish
• Loss of companionship or support
• Emotional suffering
• Disability

Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001, section 44(1) states:

"The municipality that has jurisdiction over a highway or bridge shall keep it in a state of repair that is reasonable in the circumstances, including the character and location of the highway or bridge." Source: Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, s 44(1)

Section 44(2) states:

"A municipality that defaults in complying with subsection (1) is, subject to the Negligence Act, liable for all damages any person sustains because of the default." Source: Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25, s 44(2)

The federal Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, section 3, reads:

"The Crown is liable for the damages for which, if it were a person, it would be liable (a) in the Province of Quebec, in respect of (i) the damage caused by the fault of a servant of the Crown, or (ii) the damage resulting from the act of a thing in the custody of or owned by the Crown or by the fault of the Crown as custodian or owner; and (b) in any other province, in respect of (i) a tort committed by a servant of the Crown, or (ii) a breach of duty attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property." Source: Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, RSC 1985, c C-50, s 3

In the provinces that have one, the duties owed by occupiers and property owners come from the occupiers' liability statute rather than from the provincial negligence act. Where there is no such statute, the duty comes from the common law of negligence. Either way, the negligence acts deal with apportioning fault, which is why section 44(2) above makes municipal liability "subject to the Negligence Act." In a negligence claim, the claimant must generally prove:

• The property owner, occupier, or government agency owed the claimant a duty of care.
• There was a failure to exercise reasonable care.
• The failure caused the injury on the "but for" test.
• There was harm in the form of actual damages (see above).
• The harm was not too remote, meaning it falls within the scope of the duty that was breached.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Notice deadlines that can end a Canadian slip and fall claim

Notice deadlines are the single most common way a Canadian slip and fall claim dies before anyone looks at the merits. They are much shorter than the limitation period for starting a lawsuit, and missing one can bar the action entirely. Three verified examples:

Other provinces and territories set their own notice rules. Confirm the deadline that applies where you fell before assuming you have time.

Ontario: 10 days for a municipal road or bridge

Where a fall is caused by a municipality's failure to keep a road or bridge in repair, section 44(10) requires written notice of the claim, including the date, time and location of the occurrence, served on or sent by registered mail to the clerk of the municipality within 10 days after the injury. Where two or more municipalities are jointly responsible for the repair, notice goes to the clerk of each.

Two statutory exceptions soften that deadline. Under section 44(11), failure to give notice is not a bar to the action where the injured person dies as a result of the injury. Under section 44(12), failure to give notice or insufficiency of the notice is not a bar if a judge finds there is reasonable excuse and that the municipality is not prejudiced in its defence.

Watch out: Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001, section 44(9), provides that "Except in case of gross negligence, a municipality is not liable for a personal injury caused by snow or ice on a sidewalk." A winter sidewalk fall in Ontario is therefore a much harder claim against a municipality than a fall caused by a pothole or broken pavement.

Section 44(3) also gives the municipality defences. It is not liable for failing to keep a highway or bridge in a reasonable state of repair if it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the state of repair, if it took reasonable steps to prevent the default from arising, or if minimum standards established by regulation applied and were met.

Ontario: 60 days for snow or ice on private property

This rule is newer than most online guidance reflects. Section 6.1 of Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act came into force on 29 January 2021 (2020, c 33, s 1) and applies to private and occupied premises, not just municipal property. It reads:

"No action shall be brought for the recovery of damages for personal injury caused by snow or ice against a person or persons listed in subsection (2) unless, within 60 days after the occurrence of the injury, written notice of the claim, including the date, time and location of the occurrence, has been personally served on or sent by registered mail to at least one person listed in subsection (2)." Source: Occupiers' Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2, s 6.1(1)

The persons listed in subsection (2) are the occupier, and any independent contractor the occupier employed to remove snow or ice on the premises during the relevant period. Under subsections (3) and (4), whoever receives the notice must pass a copy to the other occupiers and to the snow removal contractor (or, for a contractor, back to the occupier that employed it).

The same two exceptions apply. Section 6.1(5) preserves the action where the injured person dies as a result of the injury, and section 6.1(6) preserves it where a judge finds reasonable excuse for the want or insufficiency of notice and no prejudice to the defendant. Section 6.1(7) confirms that serving notice on any one listed person is enough even if the action is later brought against someone who did not originally receive it.

Practically, this means a fall on an icy grocery store lot or condominium walkway in Ontario starts a 60 day clock immediately, in writing, by personal service or registered mail. Verbally telling a store manager is not notice under section 6.1(1).

British Columbia: 2 months

Section 736(1) of British Columbia's Local Government Act provides that a municipality or regional district is in no case liable for damages unless written notice, setting out the time, place and manner in which the damage has been sustained, is delivered within 2 months from the date on which the damage was sustained. Section 736(2) preserves the action where the injured person dies, and section 736(3) lets the court excuse a missing or insufficient notice where there was reasonable excuse and the defendant has not been prejudiced in its defence.

What to remember if you are injured on public property in Canada

• Serve written notice within the time your province sets, and do it in writing by the method the statute names. A notice deadline is not the deadline to commence the lawsuit itself. Both apply.
• A municipality has statutory defences. In Ontario those include lack of knowledge it could not reasonably have had, reasonable steps taken, and compliance with minimum maintenance standards (Municipal Act, 2001, s 44(3)).
• Occupiers owe a duty of care to people who enter the premises lawfully. Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act, s 3(1), requires "such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable" to see that persons entering are reasonably safe. British Columbia's Occupiers Liability Act, s 3(1), is to the same effect. Note the split in Ontario, because it decides which statute governs your fall: section 10(2) provides that the Occupiers' Liability Act does not apply to the Crown or to any municipal corporation where it is the occupier of a public highway or a public road. A road or sidewalk fall is therefore governed by the Municipal Act, 2001, s 44, while a fall in a municipal building, arena or park is governed by the Occupiers' Liability Act.
• That duty is reduced for risks a person willingly assumes (Ontario s 4(1); British Columbia s 3(3)).
• Find the source of the duty where you fell. Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have occupiers' liability statutes, and that statute is the place to start. Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three territories have no such Act and apply the common law of negligence. New Brunswick abolished the law of occupiers' liability by section 2 of its Law Reform Act and applies ordinary negligence. Quebec applies the Civil Code of Québec.
• Bring the claim against the party that actually owed you the duty, which may be the municipality, a Crown body, a private occupier, or a snow removal contractor.
• Depending on the amount claimed, you may file in small claims court or in the superior court of your province. Provincial rules set the small claims maximum.

Can you sue for falling on a sidewalk in Canada?

Yes, but you must prove the municipality responsible for the area acted negligently. To sue a municipality in Canada after a slip and fall, you generally must show:

• The sidewalk or government property was in an unsafe condition.
• The municipality or agency in charge failed to make reasonable efforts to keep it reasonably safe.
• You suffered injury because of that failure.

If you litigate, the court will consider the municipality's maintenance policy. Are the policies in place reasonable? Does the municipality maintain, inspect, and repair the property? Did the claimant's own actions contribute to the fall?

In Ontario, remember section 44(9): unless the municipality was grossly negligent, it is not liable for a personal injury caused by snow or ice on a sidewalk. If your own actions caused the fall, that will also reduce or defeat the claim, and section 44(2) makes municipal liability subject to the Negligence Act, which apportions fault.

How to make a slip and fall claim against a city in Canada

Start with a question that decides how much duty was owed: were you on the property lawfully? Occupiers' liability statutes reduce the duty owed to people who willingly assume the risk, and they deem certain entrants to have done so.

Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act puts it this way:

"The duty of care provided for in subsection 3 (1) does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person who enters on the premises, but in that case the occupier owes a duty to the person to not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his or her property and to not act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his or her property." Source: Occupiers' Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2, s 4(1)

Section 4(2) deems a person who is on the premises intending to commit, or committing, a criminal act to have willingly assumed all risks. Section 4(3) extends the same deeming rule to entry prohibited under the Trespass to Property Act, entry where the occupier has posted no notice and has not otherwise expressly permitted entry, and certain unpaid recreational entry.

Read section 4(3) together with section 4(4), which is the part most summaries drop. The deeming rule in 4(3) applies only on the premises listed in 4(4): rural premises used for agricultural purposes, vacant or undeveloped premises, forested or wilderness premises, golf courses when not open for playing, utility rights of way and corridors, unopened road allowances, private roads and recreational trails reasonably marked by notice as such, and portage routes. Section 4(3) does not reach an ordinary store, parking lot, office or condominium. If you were hurt on urban premises, do not assume you were deemed to have assumed the risk, and an occupier of urban premises should not assume section 4(3) is a defence.

British Columbia's Occupiers Liability Act works the same way at section 3(3), with section 3(3.1) covering a trespasser committing a criminal act.

Note what those provisions do not say. In Ontario and British Columbia, even for a trespasser or a criminal entrant, the occupier still owes a duty not to create a danger with intent to do harm and not to act with reckless disregard for that person's safety. An occupier who deliberately sets a hazard can face both civil liability and criminal exposure.

Alberta draws that line differently, so do not carry the Ontario rule west. Section 12(1) of Alberta's Occupiers' Liability Act starts from the opposite premise: an occupier "does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser on the occupier's premises," subject to subsections 12(2) and 12(3) and to section 13. Section 12(2) lets a trespasser who is not a criminal trespasser recover only where the death or injury results from the occupier's wilful or reckless conduct. Section 12(3) sets a much higher bar for a criminal trespasser: no action lies unless the occupier's conduct "is wilful and grossly disproportionate in the circumstances" and "results in the occupier being convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) that is prosecuted by indictment." Reckless disregard on its own is not enough in Alberta.

What constitutes criminal negligence in Canada, and how does it relate to slip and fall accidents?

Criminal negligence does not require an intent to injure anyone. That is the most common misunderstanding of this offence. Section 219 of the Criminal Code defines it by the degree of disregard shown, not by intent:

"219 (1) Every one is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. (2) For the purposes of this section, duty means a duty imposed by law." Source: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 219

The practical difference from a civil slip and fall claim is the threshold. Ordinary carelessness, such as failing to salt a walkway, is a civil negligence question. Installing a trap or a deliberate tripping hazard, or ignoring an obvious lethal danger, is the territory where the Criminal Code becomes relevant. Criminal charges in slip and fall situations are rare, and whether the threshold is met is a question for the Crown and the courts.

What is the penalty for criminal negligence in Canada?

• Criminal negligence causing death. Indictable offence, maximum sentence of life imprisonment (Criminal Code, s 220(b)). Where a firearm is used, there is a four year mandatory minimum under s 220(a).
• Criminal negligence causing bodily harm. Hybrid offence. On indictment, a maximum of 10 years; the Crown may also proceed by summary conviction (Criminal Code, s 221).

Section 224 of the Criminal Code, headed "death that might have been prevented," addresses causation:

"Where a person, by an act or omission, does any thing that results in the death of a human being, he causes the death of that human being notwithstanding that death from that cause might have been prevented by resorting to proper means." Source: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 224

Section 224 is a causation rule. It stops an accused from arguing that someone else could have prevented the death. It does not turn criminal negligence into murder.

That distinction matters. Causing death by criminal negligence is charged under section 220, which is its own offence. The word murder does not appear in section 220, and section 219 turns on wanton or reckless disregard rather than an intent to kill. The National Judicial Institute's model jury instruction for the section 220 offence is titled "criminal negligence causing death (manslaughter by criminal negligence)." So a fatal slip and fall caused by criminal negligence can support a homicide charge carrying up to life imprisonment, but it is not a murder charge.

What to do after a slip and fall accident on private or public property in Canada

If you suffer an injury on public or private property, the practical steps are:

• If you are able, look at the scene. Are there signs warning about the hazard? Are you in a restricted area? Can you identify what caused the fall?
• Gather evidence. Photographs of the hazard, witness names and statements, surveillance footage, and video of the scene immediately afterward all matter, and conditions like ice can disappear within hours.
• Report the fall to the occupier or property owner.
• Do not admit fault at the scene, and avoid wording the other party could use in its defence.
• Seek medical attention and keep records of every expense related to the accident, including out of pocket payments.
• Contact your insurer if you have personal injury coverage.
• Serve written notice on the occupier, contractor, or municipality within the statutory deadline. In Ontario that can be as little as 10 days for a municipal road defect or 60 days for snow or ice on private premises.
• Contact a lawyer promptly. If you do not act within the time the statute sets, you can lose the right to sue.

What occupiers and property owners in Canada should do after a slip and fall accident

If someone is injured on your property, you could be liable for damages. Reasonable steps include:

• Offer reasonable assistance to the injured person, and arrange medical care where it is requested or clearly needed.
• Do not admit fault, and train staff not to admit fault at the scene.
• Gather evidence, including photographs of the scene, records of warnings and inspections, surveillance footage, and maintenance or snow removal records.
• Do not rush to pay. If the evidence shows the fall was not caused by you or your staff, that evidence is your defence.
• If you received a notice under Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act, s 6.1, remember you must forward a copy to the other occupiers and to your snow and ice removal contractor under subsections (3) and (4).

What duty do you owe to trespassers, children, and people who accept a risk?

Occupiers owe a duty of care to people who enter their premises lawfully. Where someone enters unlawfully or accepts an obvious risk, the answer turns on the province. Under Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act, s 4(1), and British Columbia's Occupiers Liability Act, s 3(3), the statute reduces the duty but does not remove it: the occupier still owes a duty not to create a danger with deliberate intent to do harm and not to act with reckless disregard for the person's safety. Alberta starts from the opposite rule, and section 12(1) of its Act says an occupier owes no duty of care to a trespasser at all, subject to the exceptions in sections 12(2), 12(3) and 13.

Whether someone truly assumed a risk is a question of fact, and it depends on what that person understood. That is why age and capacity come up when the injured person is a child.

Is there an attractive nuisance doctrine in Canada?

Not under that name, and the honest answer is that it depends on the province. "Attractive nuisance" is American common law terminology, and the phrase itself is not used in any Canadian occupiers' liability statute. But do not read that as meaning no Canadian statute treats children differently, because one does.

In Ontario and British Columbia there is no child specific provision. The phrase does not appear anywhere in Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act, and neither that Act nor British Columbia's Occupiers Liability Act contains a separate rule for children or draws any age line. What those statutes use instead is a single reasonableness standard. Ontario's s 3(1) requires an occupier to take "such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable" to see that people entering the premises are reasonably safe. The circumstances of the case are what a court assesses, and the characteristics of the person who was hurt, including a child's age and understanding, are part of those circumstances.

Alberta is the exception, and it is the one province whose Act creates a separate duty owed to child trespassers. The section is headed "Child trespassers":

"13(1) When an occupier knows or has reason to know (a) that a child trespasser is on the occupier's premises, and (b) that the condition of, or activities on, the premises create a danger of death or serious bodily harm to that child, the occupier owes a duty to that child to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the child will be reasonably safe from that danger." Source: Occupiers' Liability Act, RSA 2000, c O-4, s 13(1)

Section 13(2) then tells a court what to weigh in deciding whether that duty was discharged: the age of the child, the ability of the child to appreciate the danger, and the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or protecting the child from it, compared to the risk the danger poses to the child. Section 13(3) fills in when an occupier has reason to know a child is present, namely where the occupier knows facts from which a reasonable person would infer that a child is present, or that a child's presence is so probable that the occupier should act on the assumption that one is.

Manitoba takes a third approach and handles the same problem with an age line rather than a separate duty. Section 3(4) of The Occupiers' Liability Act cuts the occupier's obligation down to not creating a danger with deliberate intent to do harm and not acting with reckless disregard. Section 3(4.1) then applies that reduced duty only to a person "who is 12 years of age or older," whether that person entered to commit a criminal act or entered agricultural, forestry or grazing land, vacant or undeveloped land, a forested or wilderness area, a recreational trail, a closed golf course, a private road, or a utility right of way. A trespassing child under 12 in Manitoba is therefore still owed the full duty in section 3(1).

Two things follow from all of that. Alberta's section 13 is a real, codified duty toward child trespassers, not just the general reasonableness standard restated, and it sits as an express exception to section 12(1), which otherwise says an occupier owes a trespasser no duty of care at all. And it is not the American doctrine either: attractive nuisance turns on the hazard drawing the child onto the land, while Alberta's rule turns on what the occupier knew and how serious the danger was. The American label is wrong everywhere in Canada. The underlying idea that children are treated differently is written into the statute in Alberta, and into Manitoba's age 12 threshold, and elsewhere it is folded into the general reasonableness standard.

So the practical advice you will see repeated online is directionally sound even though the label attached to it is wrong. If you have a pool, trampoline, treehouse, or similar feature that a child could reach:

• Fence and secure it, and keep gates latched.
• Post signage where a hazard is not obvious.
• If you find children on your property, ask them to leave or speak with their parents.
• Check your municipality's bylaws. Many municipalities impose their own pool enclosure requirements, and those are separate from occupiers' liability.

How a court would treat a specific incident involving a child depends on which province's law applies, on the wording of that province's Act if it has one, and on the facts. An Alberta answer and an Ontario answer to the same set of facts can differ. If a child has been injured on your property, get advice from a lawyer licensed in that province rather than relying on a general rule.

Willing assumption of risk

If a person willingly assumes a risk, the occupier's general duty under s 3(1) does not apply to that risk. A person who attends a skating rink, for example, may accept the ordinary risk of falling on the ice through writing, words, or conduct.

That reduction is not absolute. Under Ontario's s 4(1) and British Columbia's s 3(3), the occupier must still not create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm and must not act with reckless disregard for the person's safety. Whether a particular risk was in fact willingly assumed is decided on the evidence in each case.

How to negotiate a slip and fall settlement in Canada

To avoid going to court after a slip and fall, the parties may negotiate a settlement. Practical steps:

• Consult a personal injury lawyer licensed in your province.
• Estimate your claim. Consider property damage, medical costs, the effect on your ability to work, and the effect on your health and relationships.
• Back the claim with evidence, including the notice you served and proof of how you served it.
• File before the limitation period expires, which is about two years in most provinces. Quebec's prescription rules come from the Civil Code of Québec and differ from the common law provinces, so confirm the deadline that applies to you.

Remember that the notice deadline and the limitation period are different clocks. Serving notice within 60 days does not extend your time to start the action, and starting an action within two years does not cure a missed notice.

Slip and Fall Laws by Province and Territory

Who is liable when you slip and fall depends on where you fell. Six provinces have an occupiers' liability statute: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three territories have no such Act and apply the common law of negligence. New Brunswick abolished the law of occupiers' liability and decides these claims under ordinary negligence (Law Reform Act, s 2). Quebec applies the Civil Code of Québec. Select your jurisdiction for the duty owed, notice deadlines, and how long you have to sue.

• Ontario Slip and Fall Laws
• Quebec Slip and Fall Laws
• British Columbia Slip and Fall Laws
• Alberta Slip and Fall Laws
• Manitoba Slip and Fall Laws
• Saskatchewan Slip and Fall Laws
• Nova Scotia Slip and Fall Laws
• New Brunswick Slip and Fall Laws
• Newfoundland and Labrador Slip and Fall Laws
• Prince Edward Island Slip and Fall Laws
• Yukon Slip and Fall Laws
• Northwest Territories Slip and Fall Laws
• Nunavut Slip and Fall Laws

Related Canadian Guides

• Canadian law by province and topic
• Recording laws in Canada
• Hit and Run laws in Canada
• Child Support laws in Canada
• Data Privacy laws in Canada