Publication

Occupiers’ Liability for Winter Slip & Falls: 4 Key Takeaways for Occupiers

Published:

December 11, 2025

Author(s):

• Lauren Ogden
• Jillian Kean

Share

Print

The November 2025 Nova Scotia Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Crombie Developments Limited provides important and timely guidance on the scope of occupiers’ liability for winter slip-and-fall incidents. The Court once again reaffirmed that the standard is one of reasonableness - not perfection. The decision highlights the importance of documented maintenance regimes, the limits of liability for occupiers, and the practical realities of winter conditions in Atlantic Canada.

The Fall

On January 4, 2019, the Plaintiff, a customer with an accessible parking permit, arrived at the A&W restaurant on Sackville Drive in Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, for their usual Friday breakfast with friends. The property was owned by Crombie Developments Limited and leased to Boone Food Services Limited, which operated the restaurant. Boone had contracted Green Arbor Landscaping Limited to provide snow and ice removal services for the 2018–2019 winter season. 

The Plaintiff parked in one of two accessible parking spots near the restaurant entrance. The weather was typical for early January in Atlantic Canada: cold but clear, with only light ice on their windshield. While inside the restaurant, they observed flurries beginning to fall. Environment Canada data indicated only a light snowfall (1.2 cm) at the nearby airport. After breakfast, the Plaintiff exited the restaurant with their friend. As the Plaintiff stepped off the curb toward their car, they noticed what appeared to be a small patch of slush in the parking spot. Upon stepping on it, the Plaintiff slipped and fell, later realizing there was ice beneath the slush. The Plaintiff’s friend assisted them and the Plaintiff drove home. They soon experienced pain and sought medical attention at the local emergency department. Their spouse later called the restaurant to report the incident. On the day of the incident, Green Arbor’s records showed that salting had been performed that morning. Photographs of the scene taken several hours after the fall showed slush near the curb.

The Claim

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants failed to properly clear and maintain the accessible parking area, arguing extra care should be taken. The Defendants maintained that their snow removal regime was reasonable and that the Plaintiff could have avoided the patch of slush. The Defendants also raised the issue of contributory negligence, questioning the Plaintiff’s choice of footwear and attentiveness.

The Legal Analysis

The case was decided under Nova Scotia’s Occupiers’ Liability Act. The Act replaces the common law rules governing the duty of care owed by occupiers (owners, tenants, or anyone in control of premises) to people entering their property. Under the Act, an occupier may be:

• Anyone in physical possession of premises;
• Anyone with responsibility for, and control over, the condition of premises, activities conducted on the premises, or persons allowed to enter; and/or
• Any combination of the above. 

Pursuant to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, an occupier must “such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable” to ensure that people and their property are “reasonably safe” while on the premises. In Kennedy, the Court considered the statutory standard of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, emphasizing (at para. 121):

There is one standard of care in the Occupiers’ Liability Act, and one standard only – that of reasonableness. There is no exception to this standard, dependent upon whether the person uses an accessible parking spot or not. If such an exception were carved out, it would mean the person entering the premises would determine the standard of care. That is not the law in Nova Scotia.

In stating this, the Court highlighted the fact that the standard is one of reasonableness rather than perfection. While a determination of reasonableness is fact specific, the reasonableness standard is applied strictly and cannot easily be displaced by other factual considerations. In assessing the issue at hand, the Court considered the particular circumstances that existed at the time of the slip and fall, including the weather conditions, the system of maintenance and inspection in place, and the Plaintiff’s knowledge and prudence. 

The Decision

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the claim and awarded the Defendants costs. The Court found:

• The snow removal regime, including regular inspections, salting and record-keeping, was reasonable and well-documented.
• The Plaintiff’s fall resulted from their choice to step on a visible patch of slush, which could have been avoided.
• No higher legal standard applies to accessible parking spots; the duty remains one of reasonableness for all areas.
• The facts are important and this action failed on the facts because evidence did not establish negligence.

In rendering this decision, the Court emphasized that (at para. 128): 

The occupier of premises is not an insurer. A finding of liability against the Defendants in these circumstances would be to render them just that – an insurer of safety on the Premises. The standard to be met here is reasonableness, not perfection.

4 Key Takeaways for Occupiers

Here are four key takeaways from Kennedy v. Crombie Developments Limited for occupiers:

Reasonable Systems Matter. Kennedy illustrates that courts look for evidence of a reasonable inspection and maintenance regime, not perfection. Occupiers should:

• Maintain clear, and reasonably detailed and documented procedures and records for winter maintenance, including temperatures, time spent at a property, and use of salt, sand, or shovels.
• Ensure all areas are included in regular inspections.
• When there is a weather event, ensure the time it takes for snow maintenance to be performed corresponds to business opening times, allowing for enough time to clear parking and walkways.

Accessible Spots. Kennedy also illustrates that while accessible parking areas deserve attention, the applicable legal standard is not elevated above other areas.

Documentation is Critical. In Kennedy, maintenance logs and inspection records were central to the defence. Occupiers should not only have a winter maintenance system in place but also proof of a regular winter maintenance system in place. This means keeping track of steps taken to ensure premises are reasonably safe. Offering this kind of proof will assist in overcoming allegations of negligence.

Personal Responsibility. As in Kennedy, Plaintiffs must show more than the fact of injury; they must prove the occupier failed to meet the standard of care.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our Insurance Defence Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss occupiers' liability issues.

Share

Print