SnowPlowInsurance.ca
  1. Home
  2. Blog
  3. Snow and Ice Liability Cases

Snow and Ice Liability Cases Every Contractor Should Know

Snow and ice claims are rarely about dramatic accidents. They are about ordinary questions: who was supposed to clear this spot, when did they last check, and can anyone prove it? The court decisions below show how Canadian courts have answered those questions.

Each summary is based on the law firm and legal publisher summaries linked at the end, not on our own reading of the full decisions. We have not included settlement or damage amounts.

General information only, not legal advice. Read the full decision and speak with a lawyer about any specific situation.

Waldick v. Malcolm (Supreme Court of Canada, 1991)

The occupiers did not clear ice at their parking area entrance even though they could anticipate it. The Supreme Court held them liable, noting they "could have cleared the ice, salted or sanded a pathway," as summarized by Northern Law.

The lesson: where ice can be anticipated and simple steps such as salting or sanding are available, failing to take them can lead to liability. It remains the leading example of an occupier's duty in winter conditions. See occupiers' liability.

Nelson (City) v. Marchi (Supreme Court of Canada, 2021)

City crews in Nelson, BC plowed angled parking stalls and left a continuous snowbank along the curb. The plaintiff was seriously injured crossing it. According to Rogers Partners, the Supreme Court dismissed the city's appeal, finding the snow clearing method was not a core policy decision immune from negligence liability.

The lesson: how snow is cleared and where it is piled can be judged against a standard of reasonable care. Windrows and snowbanks left across pedestrian routes are part of the job, not an afterthought.

Ali v. City of Toronto (Ontario Superior Court, 2020)

The plaintiff fell on a Toronto sidewalk in February 2017. She learned in 2019 that a contractor handled winter maintenance and tried to add it to the lawsuit after the two year limitation period had passed. Rogers Partners reports the motion was denied for lack of due diligence: snow and ice on a city sidewalk "should have caused the plaintiff or her counsel to inquire into the existence of a winter maintenance contractor."

The lesson: courts expect injured people to look for the winter maintenance contractor. Contractors should expect that injured people and their lawyers will look for them.

Burley v. City of Ottawa et al. (Ontario Superior Court, 2024)

A tenant fell on the municipal sidewalk next to her building. The owners' snow contractor cleared the lot and walkways but not the city sidewalk. The claim against the owners was dismissed on summary judgment because they had no duty to maintain the public sidewalk, as summarized by Rogers Partners.

The lesson: scope matters. A written contract that clearly lists which areas are yours, and which are not, is one of the most useful documents you have. See snow removal contracts and insurance.

Wilson v. 356119 Ontario Ltd. et al. (Ontario Superior Court, 2023)

The plaintiff slipped on ice in a mall parking lot and fractured her elbow. Northern Law reports the defendants were found 75% liable and the plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent.

The lesson: liability can be shared. Even where an injured person was partly careless, the parties responsible for the lot can carry most of the responsibility.

Hannam v. Medicine Hat School District No. 76 (Alberta Court of Appeal, 2020)

The plaintiff slipped on an icy school sidewalk in January 2013. The custodian had checked conditions at 6:30 AM; conditions then changed, and staff sanded. She sued in negligence and under the Occupiers' Liability Act. The Court of Appeal ruled for the school district on summary judgment, finding it had acted reasonably, according to Field Law.

The lesson: a documented inspection routine and a timely response to changing conditions can support a defence. This is why site logs matter.

Fernando and Marderosian: Notice Cases Against Niagara Falls

Two Ontario claims against the City of Niagara Falls were dismissed under the Municipal Act notice rule. In Fernando (2021), notice was given within 10 days but did not accurately specify the location. In Marderosian (2024), notice came more than 70 days after a fall on a snow covered boulevard, and the court also found no municipal duty, according to BLG and Clyde & Co.

The lesson: notice rules can decide a case. For private property in Ontario, the separate 60 day rule is explained in Ontario's 2021 slip and fall notice law.

What These Cases Have in Common

Reasonable care, clear scope, prompt notice and good records come up again and again. None of that replaces insurance, but it shapes how a claim unfolds. Ask a broker how your general liability and slip and fall coverage would respond, and read our slip and fall claims guide.

Sources

SnowPlowInsurance.ca is an independent referral service, not an insurance company or broker. We connect you with licensed brokers who provide quotes and advice. How this site works.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the leading Canadian snow and ice liability case?

Waldick v. Malcolm, a 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision, is a leading example of an occupier's duty to deal with foreseeable ice.

Can a snow contractor be added to a lawsuit after the property owner is sued?

It depends on the facts and the limitation period. In Ali v. City of Toronto, a late attempt to add a winter maintenance contractor was denied for lack of due diligence.

Why do contractors keep logs if courts decide cases on the facts?

Logs are often how the facts are proven. In Hannam, the summaries describe an early morning check and sanding after conditions changed, and the court found the school district acted reasonably.