Publication

Social Host Liability: A Timely Reminder

Published:

September 29, 2025

Author(s):

• Jillian E. D’Alessio
• Liza Myers

Share

Print

As students return and the holiday season approaches, many homeowners will open their homes to friends, colleagues and neighbours. Along with the holiday cheer comes a recurring legal question: What responsibilities do private individuals have when hosting social events and gatherings?

The 2025 N.S. Supreme Court decision in Peterson v. Anderson provides a timely reminder of social host liability. The decision highlights the narrow scope of responsibility owed for private hosts, clarifies the application of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, and reinforces the principle that intentional wrongdoers bear the consequences of their own actions. For insurers, Peterson v. Anderson offers a couple of practical lessons:

Context. First, claims against social hosts will often be raised in the context of homeowners’ or tenant insurance. Insurers should carefully assess whether a duty of care exists between the insured and the claimant.

Versus Commercial Hosts. Second, the Court emphasized the distinction between social hosts and commercial hosts, especially within the context of determining whether a “special relationship” exists and the foreseeability of possible harm at a party hosted in a private residence vis-à-vis a public space.

With the increase in gatherings throughout the season, insurers may see increased claims. Peterson should provide some assurance that the courts are not eager to expand liability for private social hosts, even when a written agreement exists with respect to damage. Peterson v. Anderson reaffirms the narrow scope of social host liability in Nova Scotia. For private individuals, the decision provides reassurance that hosting a gathering does not automatically expose them to liability for the unforeseeable acts of guests. While responsibility for property can be considered by way of agreement, the test for personal injury requires both a duty of care and foreseeability, not simply hospitality.

The Facts

In December 2019, SK hosted a bring-your-own-beverage (“BYOB”) party at a home in Halifax where she was a tenant. The property was owned by SK’s parents and shared with six co-tenants, including the Plaintiff, RP. The party was planned to take place on December 1, 2019, and an open invitation was sent out electronically. The party was for the varsity athletes’ Christmas party, an annual event, and a Facebook group was created for the event that included a Google document for signing up for a flip cup tournament.

The Agreement. In early November 2019, SK asked her co-tenants about having the party hosted at the property and received their approval. Closer to the end of November 2019, the Plaintiff and a few of the other co-tenants expressed concerns about the party culminating in a handwritten “Responsibility Agreement” drafted by another co-tenant. The document stated that SK would:

“take full responsibility for any damages, broken/stollen [sic] items and will clean-up after my party on December 1^st-2^nd, 2019.”

Importantly, the agreement did not address personal injuries. As per the evidence of the Plaintiff and one other co-tenant (a close friend of the Plaintiff), personal injuries and violence were concerns that were raised around the time the Responsibility Agreement was drafted. SK and the other co-tenants who testified at trial all gave evidence that the only concerns the co-tenants had about the party were the number of attendees, the risk of possible damage to the house and/or their personal property, and/or theft of their personal property. On December 1, 2019, SK signed the Responsibility Agreement.

The Party. The party went forward as planned, with guests arriving at the property in the evening and supplying their own beverages. SK did not serve alcohol to guests but was consuming alcohol herself. AA was a party guest who arrived at the property at approximately 9 or 9:30 p.m. with a group of his friends. He had consumed alcohol prior to his arrival and brought with him an 8-pack of beer. Approximately 75-100 people attended the party, most of whom were university students.

The Altercation. Before the party guests departed, SK (who was intoxicated throughout the party) went to bed. Sometime within 11 p.m. – 1 a.m., an altercation broke out between multiple guests in the hallway of the first floor. Party guests began pouring out the front door while some attempted to break up the fight. RP, who had spent the evening in his room on the second floor studying, heard the commotion and decided to investigate. Around the same time, SK left her bedroom and went downstairs to do the same. Upon seeing the commotion in the hallway, a sober RP attempted to ask guests to leave and was successful in getting most of the party attendees out of the property. AA, who was intoxicated at this point, re-entered the property with a friend to search for another attendee of the party. AA and his friend were at the top of the stairs when RP, who stood on the staircase below them, requested they leave immediately. AA resisted this request and kicked RP, causing him to fall backward down the stairs. AA and his friend left swiftly thereafter and AA stepped on RP’s ankle on his way down the stairs.

The Trial

RP sued SK in negligence and under the N.S. Occupiers’ Liability Act alleging she had failed in her duty as a social host. RP also sued AA, alleging both negligence and the intentional tort of battery. SK defended the claim on the basis she did not owe RP a duty of care. AA denied responsibility and, along with SK, alleged contributory negligence by RP. The only issue for trial was liability. The Court considered three issues:

• Did SK owe a duty of care to RP as a social host?
• Did SK owe a duty to RP under the Occupiers’ Liability Act?
• Was AA liable in negligence and, or in the alternative, for the intentional tort of battery?

 The Decision

The Court concluded the sole liability lie with AA – and none with SK.

Duty of Care as Social Host. With respect to the first issue, the Court held that there was no categorical duty of care owed by a party host to their guests. Accordingly, the Court completed an Anns/Cooper test to determine whether a novel duty of care existed between SK as the party host and RP as her co-tenant. The Anns/Cooper test is comprised of three requirements:

1. Reasonable foreseeability.
2. Sufficient proximity.
3. Absence of overriding policy considerations which negate a prima facie duty established by foreseeability and proximity.

The Court held the following with respect to the first requirement (at para. 263):

In this case – with the assistance of 20/20 hindsight of the party and ensuing events that took place on December 1 and 2, 2019 – this Court might conclude that personal injury was possible. But it does not follow that someone in SK’s position, prior to the incident occurring, ought reasonably to have foreseen the class of harm (personal injury) to the class of plaintiff (a co-tenant) through the general mechanism that caused the injury (battery to a party attendee). I find the reasonable foreseeability branch of the Anns/Cooper test is not satisfied.

The Court also conducted an analysis of the proximity requirement for the Anns/Cooper test and found SK’s party did not constitute an inherent and obvious risk. While finding SK may have been an irresponsible host, the Court cautioned that conflating irresponsibility toward her fellow tenants with the legal standard of creation of an inherent and obvious risk would be an error.

The Court relied heavily on the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Childs v. Desormeaux, emphasizing that private social hosts are not held to the same standard as commercial hosts. Unlike commercial establishments, social hosts are not required to employ security, monitor intoxication or impose rules on guests unless they actively create or exacerbate the risks while at the gathering. In this case, SK did not provide alcohol, hosted a “BYOB” event and the assault rose solely from AA’s actions, who was a guest at the party.

The “Responsibility Agreement” drafted and executed by the roommates in this instance did not alter this analysis. The document referred only to damages to property and cleanup. As such, the Court concluded it could not reasonably be interpreted as an assumption of liability for personal injuries.

Occupiers’ Liability Act. The Court acknowledged that SK met the definition of an “occupier” pursuant to section 2(a) of the N.S. Occupiers’ Liability Act, as she had control of the premises during the party. However, a finding of liability under the Act requires both reasonable foreseeability and the existence of a special relationship. The Court held that imposing liability on an occupier for the conduct of third parties will only occur in exceptional circumstances: either where there is a relationship of control between the plaintiff and defendant, or a “special relationship” between same. The Court held as follows (at para. 295-297; original emphasis):

SK had no control over AA: an autonomous, adult, man. The analysis boils down to whether there was a special relationship between SK and RP. RP argues that there was, due to them being co-occupiers and roommates.

 SK exercised no public function and was not a commercial host. I find that there was no “special relationship” between SK and RP. The Supreme Court of Canada in Stewart v. Pettie, 1995 CanLII 147 (SCC), [1995] 1 SCR 131, also commented on the necessity of reasonable foreseeability of risk in the analysis, even when there was a “special relationship” between the plaintiff and defendant:

 [48] I do, however, have difficulty accepting the proposition that the mere existence of this “special relationship”, without more, permits the imposition of a positive obligation to act. Every person who enters a bar or restaurant is in an invitor-invitee relationship with the establishment, and is therefore in a “special relationship” with that establishment. However, it does not make sense to suggest that, simply as a result of this relationship, a commercial host cannot consider other relevant factors in determining whether in the circumstances positive steps are necessary.

 [49] The existence of this “special relationship” will frequently warrant the imposition of a positive obligation to act, but the sine qua non of tortious liability remains the foreseeability of the risk. Where no risk is foreseeable as a result of the circumstances, no action will be required, despite the existence of a special relationship…

Here, there was no foreseeability of violence between RP and AA, who were strangers with no prior animosity. SK was not exercising a commercial or public function that would heighten the possible duty of care owed. Having found that there was no special relationship between SK and RP, and the incident between RP and AA was not a foreseeable risk that SK could have appreciated prior to it occurring, the Court went on to find that RP willingly assumed the risk in engaging with party attendees. Pursuant to section 5(1) of the Act, this would negate the duty of care owed by SK to RP with respect to third parties.

The Court noted that RP could have opted to remain in his room during the party, and to that extent, willingly assumed the risk in engaging with attendees. Notably, however, the Court clarified that a finding pursuant to section 5(1) of the Act did not equate to contributory negligence on his part in terms of RP contributing, negligently, in his interaction with AA. Furthermore, section 5(1) does not negate every duty owed by an occupier as there is still the duty to persons entering the premises not to create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or property of that person and not to act with reckless disregard.

The Court held that SK discharged her occupier’s duty and did not act with deliberate intent of harm or damage to RP, nor with reckless disregard of RP. Ultimately, the Court held that the circumstances did not equate to an exceptional circumstance in which it would be just for an occupier to be held liable for the intentional torts of a third party. In quoting the 2022 decision of the N.S. Court of Appeal in Theriault v. Avery’s Farm Markets Limited, the Court held that “an occupier is not a guarantor or insurer of the safety of the persons coming on its premises”.

AA’s Liability. The Court found AA liable in both negligence and battery as AA’s actions were deliberate. Further, the Court found that AA’s liability was several, not joint, and rejected arguments that RP or SK were contributorily negligent. Ultimately, the Court held AA entirely responsible for his own actions at the party.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our Insurance Defence Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss social host liability claims.

Share

Print