The respondent fell while stepping onto a deck at the appellants' home and sued for negligence.
The trial judge found the appellants 65% liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act because the deck step was higher than standard, and also noted a breach of the Dog Owners' Liability Act.
On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, finding the trial judge erred by failing to analyze whether the deck height created an objectively unreasonable risk of harm and by failing to make any finding that the deck height actually caused the fall.
The appeal was allowed and the respondent's claim was dismissed.
