Bainbridge v. 1392396 Ontario Limited and the rigorous application of the Occupiers' Liability Act
This article was provided by Bogoroch & Associates
In Bainbridge v. 1392396 Ontario Limited, 2024 ONSC 6990, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reaffirmed the standard occupiers must meet in maintaining safe premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, delivering a significant award to a tenant who suffered series personal injuries due to landlord negligence. The case stands as a potent reminder of the consequences for property owners who fail in their duty of care — and the protection available to tenants who suffer as a result.
The incident and procedural history
Bainbridge, the plaintiff, suffered a severe knee injury after slipping on an icy staircase outside her rental home on February 10, 2016. At the time of the incident, she was carrying her child and fell violently, fracturing her lateral tibial plateau. Her landlords — 1392396 Ontario Limited and its principals, Raul and Mikhail Orozco — were noted in default after failing to defend the action. The matter proceeded as an undefended trial before Justice Papageorgiou in December 2024.
Liability and the occupiers’ duty
Justice Papageorgiou found the defendants liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2. As occupiers, the defendants owed a duty to Bainbridge to ensure the premises were reasonably safe. Based on deemed admissions in the statement of claim and compelling testimony from the plaintiff, the court concluded that the defendants failed in their obligations. Key findings included:
- The staircase had not been adequately cleared of ice and snow, presenting a hidden hazard;
- The landlords had exclusive responsibility for property maintenance, including snow and ice removal;
- The plaintiff was acting prudently and wearing appropriate footwear; and
- The presence of ice beneath snow, captured in photographs taken at the scene, and the landlords’ immediate remedial action post-incident supported findings of prior negligence.
Damages: Quantification and impact
The court awarded Bainbridge $150,000 in general damages, along with $635.57 in out-of-pocket expenses and $12,000 for future care costs. These sums reflect the severity and permanence of her injury, which required multiple surgeries and left her with chronic pain, mobility issues, and significant limitations with her quality of life and in performing parenting duties.
Justice Papageorgiou relied on both medical evidence and case law to contextualize the award. The court cited a series of Ontario decisions involving similar orthopedic injuries to benchmark the damages, including Beardwood v. City of Hamilton, 2022 ONSC 4030, Maceachern v. TFG Inc., 2018 ONSC 242, Klurfeld v. Nova Quest Logistics Inc. et al, 2014 ONSC 1538, and Iacolucci v. Fernbrook Homes, 2006 CarswellOnt 9398.
Dr. Rick Zarnett, the plaintiff’s orthopedic expert, opined that the injuries were irreversible and would likely require further surgical intervention in the future. Although his report dated back to 2017, the court gave it some weight, noting that many of his predictions had indeed materialized.
No finding of contributory negligence
Justice Papageorgiou rejected any suggestion that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The facts — deemed admitted due to the defendants' default — confirmed that she had navigated the stairs safely for months beforehand, and that she wore appropriate winter boots. Her fall was the direct and proximate result of the landlords’ failure to maintain the property safely.
Costs and judicial discretion
On the issue of costs, the court awarded the plaintiff costs of $36,058 on a partial indemnity basis, along with disbursements totaling $11,000.80. While the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs due to the defendants’ failure to defend, the court reiterated the high bar for such awards, requiring “reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct.” Mere default was insufficient to meet that threshold.
Conclusion
The Bainbridge decision is a textbook application of occupiers’ liability principles in a residential tenancy context. It emphasizes that landlords cannot abdicate their maintenance responsibilities and highlights the evidentiary value of contemporaneous photographs, medical documentation, and expert opinion in substantiating serious personal injury claims.
Justice Papageorgiou’s decision not only delivers justice for a plaintiff who endured years of pain and reduced quality of life but also sends a clear message: failure to defend a lawsuit can carry significant consequences — and courts will not hesitate to apply the law rigorously in the absence of a defence.
