With temperatures regularly in the -30s and feet of snow, braving Alberta winters is no joke. This makes it particularly important for “occupiers” of property, the person or entity who has responsibility for and control of the property, to ensure the safety of individuals who enter the property during the winter. The Occupiers’ Liability Act, RSA 2000, c O-4 has long governed the responsibility of “occupiers” in Alberta in ensuring visitors are “reasonably safe” when accessing the property. However, the presence of this legislation does not mean that “occupiers” need to make sure there is no snow or ice on the property. A 2024 decision out of New Brunswick (“Morton”) provides a persuasive argument that the presence of some snow or ice on the ground does not lead to a finding of negligence on behalf of “occupiers”.

Morton v Woodside Realty Inc.

In this case, in February 2019, the Plaintiff, Glenda Morton, slipped and fell in the parking lot of her apartment building, which was owned by the Defendant, Woodside Realty Inc. It had snowed the day before, and while some of the parking lot had been salted, the area where the Plaintiff slipped had an ice patch and no salt. On the day of the fall, the Defendant, through use of a third-party snow removal company, had inspected the parking lot and laid down salt in some areas.

Ultimately, the Court found that the general knowledge that ice may be present in a parking lot during the winter months in New Brunswick lowered the standard of care applicable to the property owner. Further, the Court confirmed that the presence of an inspection and maintenance program will alleviate some of the potential risks, and if the program is reasonable and applied, it will allow the owner to meet standard of care in providing a reasonably safe premises. It was not reasonable to expect the owner or occupier to apply salt in and around parked vehicles as this level of maintenance went far beyond the reasonable level of maintenance expected for a parking lot. All in all, the Defendant was found to have met the standard of care and was not negligent in the circumstances.

Takeaways: Better Safe Than Sorry

While Morton provides persuasive argument that some snow and ice is acceptable and to be expected in winter in Canada, whether a property is deemed “reasonably safe” will depend on the unique facts of each case. The best defence for property owners or other “occupiers” of a property will still be to have fulsome policies to ensure snow and ice is being dealt with in a sufficient and efficient matter.

Occupiers’ liability issues can escalate quickly, especially during Alberta’s harsh winters. For tailored advice, contact Emily J. Smeaton in Edmonton, Jane Freeman in Calgary, or any member of Field Law’s Insurance Group.

Link to decision: Morton v Woodside Realty Inc., 2024 NBKB 64