MacGarvie v. Attorney General of Canada, 2025 ONSC 3707

Court File No.: CV-22-00000250-0000
Date: 2025-06-20
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
Bradley MacGarvie, Plaintiff
– and –
Attorney General of Canada, Defendant

Counsel:
Jessica Mor and Jeffrey Kemp, for the Plaintiff
Emily Keilty and Jennifer Bond, for the Defendant

Heard: April 14–16, 2025
Reasons for Judgment by: P. Hurley

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff Bradley MacGarvie is an inmate at Bath Institution. He slipped and fell leaving a building at the prison on December 9, 2020.

[2] The parties agreed on damages. Liability remains in issue.

[3] There is no dispute that Mr. MacGarvie fell. The defendant admits that it owed a duty of care to him as an occupier of the premises under the Occupiers' Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2 (the “OLA”) and because of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 (the “CCRA”).

[4] The defendant denies that it breached the duty of care and submits that the action should be dismissed. In the alternative, if there was a breach, I should find that Mr. MacGarvie was contributorily negligent.

[5] Six witnesses testified at trial – Mr. MacGarvie and another inmate, Jeremy Gough, and four on behalf of the defendant – Norm Skelhorn, Mike Ross, Colin Crossman and Stephanie Bowen. The parties also filed a comprehensive Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF”) and a joint document brief.

The Issues

[6] The two legal issues are whether there was a breach of the duty of care in the circumstances and, if so, was the plaintiff contributorily negligent.

[7] To decide these legal issues, I must address the following questions:

1. What was the condition of the area where the plaintiff fell?
2. What was the cause of the plaintiff’s fall?
3. Did the defendant have a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance on the date of the fall (i.e. did it have a reasonable system in place to ensure that users of the property would be reasonably safe from falling due to the weather conditions)?
4. Was the defendant’s system of inspection and maintenance followed on the date of the plaintiff’s fall?
5. Did the plaintiff fail to take reasonable care for his own safety?

Background

[8] I reproduce here the ASF:

1. The Plaintiff, Bradley MacGarvie, was born on April 20, 1989.
2. The Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada ("the Crown"), provides correctional services in accordance with the CCRA.
3. Pursuant to the CCRA, the Crown is responsible for: a. the care and custody of inmates at federal correctional facilities; b. carrying out the sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; c. establishing, maintaining, and operating federal correctional facilities; d. taking all reasonable steps to ensure that correctional facilities, the penitentiary environment, and the living and working conditions of inmates is safe, healthful and free of all practices that undermine a person's sense of personal dignity; and e. the provision of essential health care and reasonable access to nonessential healthcare.
4. Under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, RSC 1985, c C-50, the Crown is liable for the tortious and/or negligent conduct of its servants.
5. The Crown is subject to the provisions of the OLA.
6. The Crown owed the Plaintiff a duty of care.
7. In December[The text is very long and was truncated. Please let me know if you want me to continue from where it left off.]