Background:

• Pavlovic slipped on a city sidewalk adjacent to a property managed by a strata corporation.
• Just George Cleaning and Maintenance Inc. had an oral contract with the strata for maintenance, including snow and ice removal per a city bylaw.
• Pavlovic sued Just George for negligence after discontinuing claims against the strata and the city.

Key Legal Points:

• The chambers judge applied the Anns/Cooper framework:

  • Proximity: No sufficient relationship between Pavlovic and Just George.
  • Foreseeability: Harm was foreseeable but did not establish sufficient proximity.
  • Policy Considerations: No duty of care due to policy reasons.

• The judge ruled no analogous precedent existed to impose a duty of care on a maintenance contractor for public sidewalk users.

Court of Appeal Decision:

• Held: Appeal dismissed.
  • The court found the chambers judge correctly applied the Anns/Cooper analysis.
  • Der v. Zhao was determinative, noting the city's control of the sidewalk and Pavlovic’s status as a passerby.
  • Just George’s contractual obligation to clear snow by 10:00 a.m. did not create an ongoing duty to ensure safety throughout the day.

Conclusion:

• Just George did not owe Pavlovic a duty of care. The appeal was dismissed, confirming no liability for the maintenance contractor.

There was no monetary award, costs, or damages specified.