No Hazard, No Claim: A Key Reminder in Slip-and-Fall Claims Under the OLA
Join our email list today to receive alerts, articles, invitations to events and more!
3 min read
Overview
A recent decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court highlights the necessity of proving all elements in an occupier’s liability claim. Where a plaintiff cannot establish that a hazard existed, the claim will fail in its entirety. This serves as a useful reminder for insurers and property owners to carefully assess the evidentiary strength of a claim when considering litigation versus resolution.
In Riggs v 0838782 BC Ltd, the plaintiff (“Riggs”) brought a claim pursuant to the Occupiers Liability Act against the property owners and manager ("the occupiers"), alleging she slipped on ice on a walkway outside her apartment building. Riggs claimed ice had formed due to a broken downspout and inadequate winter maintenance, resulting in her slipping, falling and breaking her wrist. The occupiers denied that any ice was present and argued that, even if it had been, they had a reasonable inspection and maintenance system in place at the relevant time. At trial, the key issue was whether the Riggs could prove her fall was caused by ice on the walkway.
What the Court Said
British Columbia’s Occupiers Liability Act sets out the duty of care owed by an occupier of a premises to ensure the premises are reasonably safe. However, for a breach to be found, a plaintiff must prove a condition or hazard that existed on the premises that caused them to slip and fall, and that the condition or hazard existed due to the occupier’s breach of that duty.
Once a plaintiff establishes these two elements, the defendant occupier can rebut this breach by showing that they had a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance in place to eliminate or minimize potential hazards, and that this system was being followed at the time of the fall.
The Court also made clear that an occupier is not automatically liable simply because someone is injured on their property.
Plaintiff’s Credibility + Evidence
The Court found that Riggs’ evidence about the presence of ice on the walkway was unreliable and largely speculative. She did not actually observe ice at the time of her fall, and her recollection was based on assumptions after the incident. Her testimony was inconsistent, particularly with respect to the location of her fall and the weather conditions. The Court also found that the photographs taken immediately after the fall by Riggs’ spouse did not demonstrate any ice on the walkway.
Expert Evidence
Both Riggs and the occupiers called experts to provide opinions on the likelihood that ice was on the walkway at the time of the fall.
Riggs’ expert opined that ice “may” have formed during a brief drop in temperature, but his conclusions were tentative and lacked a clear explanation for the presence of water on the walkway, given that there had been no precipitation for approximately 16 hours prior to her fall. In contrast, the occupiers' expert provided a firm opinion that it was “very unlikely” that any ice was present, relying on the weather conditions, lack of precipitation and the surrounding environment of the walkway. The Court found the occupier's expert’s reasoning to be more thorough and reliable, noting that Riggs’ expert evidence was not definitive and lacked supporting explanations for his findings.
Ultimately, the Court found as a fact that there was no ice on the walkway and that Riggs did not slip on ice.
No Hazard = Claim Dismissed
Having failed to establish that a hazard existed, Riggs’ claim was dismissed entirely. As a result, the Court did not assess the occupier's maintenance practices or consider Riggs’ damages.
Takeaways
Alberta similarly has an Occupiers’ Liability Act, which creates a duty of care owed by property owners and managers to visitors of the property to take steps to keep visitors reasonably safe. However, it also recognizes that property owners and managers are not responsible for risks that a visitor willingly accepts. The key takeaway is that a plaintiff must prove that a condition or hazard existed on the property that caused their injury, and that this condition or hazard existed due to a breach of the property owner or manager’s duty of care. If they cannot, the claim will most likely fail entirely. This reinforces the importance for insurers, property owners and property managers of carefully evaluating the strength of the plaintiff’s evidence before deciding whether to settle a claim
If you are an insurer or property owner navigating a slip-and-fall claim and assessing potential liability, please contact Seychelle Thompson or Jane Freeman in Calgary, Christine Pratt, KC in Edmonton, or any member of our Insurance Group for guidance on evaluating and responding to these claims.
Link to decision: Riggs v 0838782 BC Ltd, 2026 BCSC 520
