A Practical Legal Guide Based on Recent Ontario Caselaw
Can Ontario Landlords and Property Owners Avoid Liability by Hiring a Snow Removal Contractor?
For landlords and commercial property owners across Ontario, hiring a snow removal contractor may feel like a straightforward way to discharge your winter maintenance obligations. It is not. A growing body of Ontario caselaw has made clear that outsourcing winter maintenance does not transfer your legal exposure — it merely changes the shape of it.
Under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, a landlord or property owner cannot completely avoid liability for unsafe snow and ice conditions merely by outsourcing winter maintenance to a contractor. The governing principle is found in section 6(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, whereby an occupier is only protected if it acted reasonably in hiring the contractor, took reasonable steps to ensure the contractor was competent, and took reasonable steps to ensure the work was properly done.
When Are Landlords Liable for a Snow Removal Contractor’s Work?
The key exposure for a landlord is twofold:
- negligent selection of an incompetent contractor, and
- negligent supervision and failure to monitor whether the contractor was actually performing the work properly.
The duty is not fully delegable. Courts consistently treat winter maintenance as an area requiring due diligence and active oversight.
In other words, you cannot simply sign a maintenance contract, hand over the keys, and walk away. The law demands more.
The Leading Cases: What the Courts Have Said
Sprowl v. First Capital, 2025 ONSC 3628 — The Cost of Passive Reliance
The plaintiff, an elderly shopper, slipped and fell on ice in a large retail plaza parking lot in Waterloo. She suffered a serious hip fracture requiring surgery. The plaza owner (First Capital) had contracted winter maintenance to a professional contractor (Clintar), which was responsible for plowing and salting.
The property owner argued it should not be liable because it had retained an experienced contractor. The Court was satisfied that the owner acted reasonably in retaining the winter maintenance contractor. In particular, the Court found it was evident that the contractor was competent, properly equipped, and adequately resourced to perform the contracted services.
However, this was not enough to escape liability. The Court was not satisfied that the owner had taken reasonable steps to ensure the work was being carried out properly. The Court noted there was no evidence that the owner had ever inspected the contractor’s work or followed up on the contractor’s reports. In the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the owner took steps to verify the work was completed properly, the trial judge concluded that no such steps had been taken and that the owner had therefore failed to satisfy its obligations under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
Both the contractor and the property owner were liable, and liability was apportioned collectively. The Plaintiff was not found to be contributorily negligent. The court stressed that outsourcing does not eliminate occupier responsibility.
The landlord’s specific failings were identified clearly by the Court. The landlord faced liability because it failed to verify whether salting and plowing was completed adequately, failed to respond to obvious icy conditions, and relied too heavily on the contractor’s assurances.
Ranger v. Triovest Realty Advisors, 2024 ONSC 1782 — The Importance of a Structured System
Ranger v. Triovest Realty Advisors deals with an occupier’s duty to supervise and monitor winter maintenance operations, particularly during freezing rain events. The plaintiff slipped on ice in a shopping mall crosswalk. The defendant, CPP Investment Real Estate Holdings Inc., was the owner of the mall property. The defendant, Triovest Realty Advisors, was the property management company responsible for maintenance of the mall property, including all exterior areas. Pioneer Construction entered into a contract with Triovest to provide snow removal and winter maintenance for exterior asphalt areas at the mall, including the parking lots, roadways, and crosswalks.
Justice Henderson emphasised that the legal standard is not perfection, but reasonable care in the circumstances. However, the court found serious deficiencies in both the design and operation of the maintenance system.
The court found both the property manager and the snow contractor liable because the winter maintenance system lacked adequate inspection, monitoring, and response protocols. The court emphasised that occupiers must actively monitor conditions, especially in high-traffic pedestrian areas.
The court found the defendants 100% liable collectively for the plaintiff’s injuries. No contributory negligence was found against the plaintiff.
The specific deficiencies identified by the Court are instructive for all property owners:
- The winter maintenance system lacked a clear inspection and monitoring protocol, failed to define frequency or responsibility for site inspections, did not properly address risks arising from freezing rain, and did not prioritise high-risk pedestrian areas like crosswalks.
- Although some monitoring occurred, it was informal, inconsistent, and not systematically organised, meaning there was no reliable mechanism to detect and respond to hazardous conditions in a timely manner.
- A major feature of the case was the freezing rain event. The court found that the defendants failed to establish a proper response protocol for freezing rain conditions, despite the foreseeability of such weather in Northern Ontario winters. Expert evidence established that freezing rain required active treatment measures, including sand-salt applications. The absence of a clear freezing-rain response plan was treated as a major deficiency in the winter maintenance system.
- The court was highly critical of the inspection logs and maintenance records. The court stated that if occupiers rely on maintenance records to prove reasonable care, those records must be legible, understandable, and capable of demonstrating what inspections actually occurred.
Cannon v. Cemcor Apartments Inc., 2016 ONSC 2828 — What a Successful Defence Looks Like
Not every case ends badly for landlords. Cannon provides a vital blueprint for what a successful occupiers’ liability defence looks like.
The plaintiff, Gregory Cannon, slipped and fell in the parking lot of a large apartment complex in Sudbury after stepping on an isolated icy patch concealed beneath snow. He fractured his leg and sued the landlord, Cemcor Apartments Inc., alleging that the parking lot had not been properly maintained during a significant snowfall event.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. Cemcor was found not liable. The plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Cemcor breached its duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
The landlord succeeded because Cemcor had a reasonable and structured winter maintenance policy, including regular ploughing based on snow accumulation, sanding where necessary, and use of an experienced contractor. The system was consistent with what is expected for a large residential parking lot in Northern Ontario winter conditions.
The evidence showed that ploughing occurred shortly before and on the day of the incident, sanding was applied where appropriate, and contractors and staff observed no general hazard in the lot. The court found the maintenance programme was actually implemented as designed.
The contrast with Sprowl is telling. In Cannon, there was evidence of inspections and active monitoring; the contractor regularly attended the site; and the occupier demonstrated a functioning maintenance system. In Sprowl, there was no evidence the occupier monitored the contractor’s work, no evidence of inspections by the owner, and inadequate evidence that the occupier ensured the work was properly done.
As a result, the occupier in Cannon avoided liability, while the occupier in Sprowl was found liable under section 6(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
Additional Snow and Ice Liability Cases
In Britt v. Zagjo Holdings Ltd. (1996), the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot. The maintenance system involved the use of two independent contractors. The court found that the system was disorganised and lacked communication between the contractors. The court also found that the owner had failed to ensure that the contractors had properly maintained the parking lot. The owner was found liable and the contractors had not been sued.
In Allen v. Lawrence Avenue Group Ltd. (2003), the court found that the maintenance contract did not extend to the peril that caused the plaintiff’s injuries and the owner was found solely liable. The plaintiff slipped on ice at the foot of a stairway. The maintenance contract was silent with respect to salting, and the contractor was not required to attend at the plaza in the absence of a snowfall and there were no general inspection requirements. The court held that the owner had retained responsibility for the icy conditions and that it either should have contacted the contractor to salt or done so itself.
What Creates Exposure for Ontario Landlords: A Risk Checklist
From the caselaw, we can conclude that exposure usually arises where the landlord:
- hires uninsured or unqualified contractors;
- hires contractors lacking sufficient equipment or staff;
- ignores prior complaints or performance failures;
- fails to verify attendance or maintenance logs;
- fails to inspect after storms;
- continues using a contractor after recurring deficiencies;
- lacks any monitoring or escalation protocol.
Under section 6(1), once deficiencies become apparent, the occupier can no longer simply rely on the independent contractor defence.
How Landlords Can Reduce Winter Maintenance Liability
A winter maintenance contract alone is insufficient. The occupier must be able to prove:
- active monitoring,
- defined inspection responsibilities,
- reasonable response protocols, and
- meaningful oversight of the contractor’s performance.
Absent that evidence, courts may conclude the occupier failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the work was properly done under section 6(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
More specifically, the reasoning in Sprowl suggests courts expect landlords and property managers to: inspect the property after storms; maintain logs and maintenance records; follow up on deficiencies; require corrective action when deficiencies are observed; escalate repeated failures by the contractor; and replace the contractor if deficiencies persist.
Key Takeaways for Landlords and Property Owners
The message from Ontario’s courts is unambiguous: a landlord or property owner cannot completely avoid liability for unsafe snow and ice conditions merely by outsourcing winter maintenance to a contractor. The duty is active, ongoing, and non-delegable in its entirety.
The cases of Sprowl, Ranger, and Cannon together illustrate that the difference between liability and a successful defence often comes down to documentation, monitoring, and a structured maintenance system that is not just designed on paper but demonstrably implemented in practice. Landlords who take these obligations seriously — and can prove it — stand a far better chance of successfully defending occupiers’ liability claims.