In Sprowl v. First Capital, 2025 ONSC 3628, the action arose from a slip-and-fall accident involving an 80-year-old woman who slipped on a patch of ice in the parking lot of a commercial plaza in Waterloo in January 2020. The trial, conducted under the simplified procedure in Kitchener, was limited to the issue of liability. The issue before the court was whether the plaza owner, First Capital (Bridgeport) Corporation (First Capital), and the winter maintenance contractor, Mal-Mal Enterprises operating as Clintar Landscape Management (Clintar), were negligent under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-2 (the Act).
The court found that both defendants breached their duty under s. 3(1) of the Act and were jointly 100% liable for the plaintiff’s damages. The court also addressed the scope of the defendants’ obligations regarding salting and inspecting parking spaces in commercial plazas.
The Facts
On January 12, 2020, the plaintiff, Ms. Sprowl drove to the Bridgeport Plaza in Waterloo to do some shopping. The Bridgeport Plaza features a large parking lot spanning approximately six acres. While returning to her vehicle, she slipped and fell on a large patch of ice located within a double row of parking spaces. The fall resulted in a hip fracture requiring surgery. The plaintiff was wearing winter boots, in good condition, and had observed that the lot was slippery in several areas as she walked across the parking lot to visit different stores.
The Court’s Analysis
The plaintiff claimed that Clintar failed to implement and maintain an adequate system for monitoring weather conditions and responding to hazardous conditions in a timely and effective manner. She further claimed that Clintar used insufficient salt and relied on a superficial inspection process. With respect to First Capital, the plaintiff argued that although it had entrusted the winter maintenance to Clintar, it failed to supervise Clintar’s work to ensure that the work had been reasonably performed and had, therefore, not absolved itself of liability under s. 6(1) of the Act.
The court found Clintar’s approach inadequate, particularly in addressing ice and snow accumulation in parking spaces. The court agreed with the plaintiff that the purpose of a plaza parking lot is to attract customers, who must park, exit their vehicles and walk through the lot to access stores. As such, the parking spaces required some attention to ensure the safety of the customers who parked in the lot.
Clintar’s evidence revealed that salt was primarily applied by trucks driving through laneways in the parking lot, which would cause salt to spray into the parking spaces. However, the court noted that the problem with this method was that parked vehicles would obstruct the distribution of salt. In this case, plowing and salting were not completed until after many of the stores in the plaza had opened.
The Clintar inspector’s evidence was that he did not get out of his vehicle to inspect the parking lot on foot and that his focus was to ensure that the laneways were plowed and salted. On cross-examination, he conceded that this approach could result in missed hazard and that it was difficult to assess the state of the parking lot between parked cars from inside his vehicle. The court found that little to no attention was paid to the parking spaces, despite internal communications showing Clintar was aware of the risk of ice accumulation in parking spaces that morning.
As for First Capital, the court held that while it had reasonably entrusted winter maintenance work to Clintar, the court was not satisfied that First Capital took reasonable steps to ensure that the work was done properly. As a result, First Capital failed to meet the requirements of s. 6(1) of the Act and were also in breach of section 3(1) of the Act.
The court found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. She was wearing appropriate footwear, was physically capable of walking without assistance, was not rushing and was only carrying a purse. Although she noticed the parking lot was slippery, she exercised caution and walked slowly.
Conclusion
The court held that First Capital and Clintar breached their statutory duty under the Act and that their negligence caused the plaintiff’s fall. The defendants were 100% collectively liable for the plaintiff’s damages. This case underscores the importance of site-specific winter maintenance systems and highlights that areas of expected pedestrian traffic, such as parking spaces, must be reasonably maintained. It also reinforces that occupiers must take the necessary steps to ensure that they are satisfied that the work entrusted to winter maintenance contractors is done properly to satisfy the requirements of section 6(1) of the Act.
