Victoria L. Boddy

The plaintiff tripped over sandals left on the back stoop of the defendant's home by the defendant's wife.

The plaintiff sued the defendant under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

The court held that an occupier is not required to police a capable adult spouse's habit of leaving sandals on a stoop, nor to warn visitors of such a habit.

The court also found that causation was not established and noted in obiter that the plaintiff would have been 25 percent contributorily negligent for failing to look where she was stepping.

The plaintiff tenant sued her landlord for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on ice on the front step of her leased row house.

The landlord counterclaimed, arguing the tenant was responsible for winter maintenance of the exclusive use area.

Both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of responsibility for clearing the ice.

The court held that the front step was an exclusive use area, not a common area, and that the lease provision requiring the tenant to remove snow was not void under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant's motion to dismiss the counterclaim was dismissed, and the landlord's motion was granted in part, declaring the tenant responsible for winter maintenance of the area.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring a motion to oppose the confirmation of an assessment officer's certificate regarding a solicitor's account, and a stay of enforcement.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found the moving party's delay was inordinate and inadequately explained.

The court concluded the moving party did not maintain an intention to pursue the motion and that the justice of the case did not support an extension.

The motion was dismissed.