The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a slip‑and‑fall claim, arguing it was not an occupier under the Occupiers’ Liability Act because the walkway where the plaintiff fell was not included in its lease.
The plaintiffs argued there were genuine issues requiring trial regarding whether the defendant exercised sufficient control over the walkway to qualify as an occupier and whether it could be liable under common law negligence.
The court held that evidence showing employees inspected and salted the walkway and that the entrance was used almost exclusively by the defendant’s customers raised a genuine issue requiring a trial on occupier status and negligence.
The court also granted leave to the defendant to amend its statement of defence to plead that it was not an occupier.
The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.
