Someone Slips at Your Open House — Are You Liable? Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, Explained for Sellers and Landlords
Most owners react to a fall on their property one of two wrong ways: panic (“I’m about to be sued for a fortune”) or a shrug (“they should have watched their step”). Ontario law sits in neither camp. It asks one question instead — and the answer decides everything.
If someone is hurt on my property — at an open house, or in a unit I rent out — who can actually come after me, and how long do they have to do it?
Three answers, in order: more than one person can be liable, being one isn’t automatic liability, and for a winter fall the window is startlingly short. Start with who: an occupier is anyone in physical possession of the premises, or who controls its condition and who may enter (s.1) — and the Act applies “despite the fact that there is more than one occupier of the same premises,” so it need not be you alone. Then whether you actually pay: being an occupier is not the same as owing damages. Section 3(1) asks only for “such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable” — the yardstick is reasonable care, not an accident-free house, so what a reasonable owner did that day (cleared the ice, lit the entry, secured a loose rug) is what governs. Finally how long they have: for an injury caused by snow or ice, no claim survives unless written notice is served within 60 days (s.6.1) — far shorter than the ordinary limitation period.
Source: Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, ss. 1, 3 and 6.1 (current e-Laws version; last amendment 2020, c. 33; verified 2026-08). General information only — not legal advice.
I’m Arthur Zhao. Sometimes the first sign of trouble arrives weeks after the open house is over: a registered letter from a stranger’s lawyer, or a call from your own insurer asking what you remember about a Sunday you’d half forgotten. Someone was hurt on your property, and now untangling it has landed squarely on you.
Here is the piece almost everyone gets wrong before they even reach a lawyer: they think a warning sign, or the fact that a stranger walked in “at their own risk,” settles it. It doesn’t. Ontario has one statute built for exactly this moment — the Occupiers’ Liability Act — and it neither punishes you for every accident nor lets you off with a shrug. It measures one thing: was your conduct reasonable in the circumstances. Below, I’ll walk through what that means for a seller opening the door on a Sunday, and separately for a landlord whose tenant’s guest takes a fall. (This is general information, not advice on your specific situation — if a claim lands, call a lawyer.)
→
→
→
→
The word that decides everything: “occupier”
The whole Act hangs on who is an “occupier,” and s.1 draws the net wide: an occupier is (a) a person in physical possession of the premises, or (b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of the premises, the activities carried on there, or who is allowed to enter.
On open-house day you set the hours, decide who comes in, and control the state of the place — squarely limb (b). And here is the sentence people miss: the definition applies “despite the fact that there is more than one occupier of the same premises.” So you and the person actually running the showing can both be occupiers at once. Whether your listing agent qualifies turns on who truly controls the premises and access that day — that is fact-specific, and I won’t pretend there is one answer. For you as the owner, though, the takeaway is blunt: on open-house day, you are almost certainly an occupier.
Five myths about what the law demands
⚠️“Reasonable” is proven with evidence, not memory. Because the s.3(1) standard is about your conduct, the case often turns on what you can document — inspection notes, salting records, photos, contractor logs. “I’m sure I cleared it” rarely wins; “here is the log showing it was cleared at 8 a.m.” does.
Winter rewrites the timeline: the 60-day clock
If you take one thing from this article, take this. Section 6.1 (added in 2020, in force since 29 January 2021) says that for a personal-injury claim caused by snow or ice, no action can be brought unless — within 60 days of the injury — written notice stating the date, time and location is personally served or sent by registered mail to at least one person on the statutory list (s.6.1(1)).
Read it from both sides. If you are the injured visitor, that window is far shorter than the usual limitation period and it is easy to blow — a texted complaint months later is not notice. If you are the potential defendant, it is a genuine shield: past 60 days with no proper notice, the claim is usually gone before it starts. But s.6.1 also imposes a duty on you: an occupier who receives notice must forward a copy to the other occupiers and to the snow-removal contractor (s.6.1(3)). And there are escape valves — the bar does not apply where the injury caused death (s.6.1(5)), or where a judge finds a reasonable excuse and no prejudice to the defence (s.6.1(6)).
🚨Injured on snow or ice? The clock is 60 days. Under s.6.1, written notice — date, time and location — must be personally served or sent by registered mail within 60 days of the injury, or the claim is generally barred. It runs far shorter than the ordinary limitation period; if you’re the injured party, don’t assume you have years.
The snow-removal contractor question
Owners love the idea that hiring a plough company transfers the whole risk. Section 6(1) is more demanding than that. It gives the occupier a defence where the damage was caused by the negligence of an independent contractor you engaged — but only if you can show three things: that entrusting the work was itself reasonable, that you acted reasonably in selecting and engaging the contractor, and that you took reasonable steps to satisfy yourself the contractor was competent and the work was properly done.
Notice what that really requires: not a receipt, but evidence of reasonable selection and follow-up. Keep the contract, keep the service logs, keep proof they actually showed up when the weather turned. One helpful detail: s.6(2) says the benefit of this defence flows to all occupiers of the premises, not just the one who signed the contractor.
Landlords: your duty rides on the repair clause
A rented-out property doesn’t take a landlord out of the picture — it changes how they get pulled in. Section 8(1) says that where premises are occupied under a tenancy in which the landlord is responsible for maintenance or repair, the landlord owes visitors the same duty of care as an occupier for dangers arising from a failure in that responsibility. Section 8(3) makes “tenancy” broad — statutory, implied, or any contract giving a right of occupation — and s.8(4) applies it to tenancies made before or after the Act.
So the first question for a landlord is never “did someone fall?” — it is “what did the tenancy make me responsible for?” Common areas, stairwell lighting, exterior walkways you maintain: your responsibility, your exposure. Repairs the lease assigns to the tenant generally aren’t chased back to you. (Residential landlords also carry a repair-and-maintenance duty under the Residential Tenancies Act; treat that as a general pointer here and check the current wording or a lawyer for your case.)
ℹ️Landlords: start with the lease, not the fall. Section 8 only reaches you for dangers arising from a repair or maintenance responsibility the tenancy placed on you. Before assuming exposure (or dismissing it), pin down exactly what the lease made yours — common areas and exterior walkways you maintain are the usual pressure points.
Does a warning sign actually work?
It helps — it is not a force field. The Act does let an occupier restrict, modify or exclude the duty where free to do so (s.3(3)), and it recognises “risks willingly assumed,” for which the occupier owes only two floor duties: not to create a danger with the deliberate intent to harm, and not to act with reckless disregard for the person or their property (s.4(1)).
But to lean on a sign, s.5(3) attaches a hard condition: you must take reasonable steps to bring the restriction to the person’s attention. A sign tucked in a corner, in tiny print, or one the visitor never had a chance to read before hitting the icy step will usually count for little. And s.5(1) adds that a contract cannot restrict or exclude the duty owed to someone who is not a party to it — so a waiver you signed with somebody else does nothing against the stranger who walked in to view the home. A sign is a plus; clearing the ice and fixing the light is what actually protects you.
See to the injured person first
Record the scene before it changes
Get names, not blame
Notify your insurer and keep every record
⚠️This is general information, not legal advice. Occupiers’ liability is intensely fact-driven — the weather, what you did, and what you can prove all move the outcome. If a claim or a notice arrives, call your insurer first and get a lawyer; don’t treat this article as the answer to your specific case.
💡 My honest read: open-house and rental liability is rarely decided by bad luck — it’s decided by whether the reasonable prep got done and whether you can prove it. So put the work in before anyone arrives. In winter, clear and salt the steps and walkway the day before; walk the property like an inspector for lighting, loose rugs, wet floors and exposed cords; and keep your snow contractor’s contract and service logs, which do double duty as the s.6(1) “reasonable check” and as evidence if a claim comes. If someone does fall, document time, place, photos and contacts immediately — but don’t rush to admit fault; leave that to your insurer and lawyer. Landlords: read the lease first and know exactly which repairs are yours. Do all that, and the question stops being “will I get blamed?” and becomes “can I show I took reasonable care?”
- Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, s. 1 (definition of “occupier”; more than one occupier possible), s. 3 (duty of reasonable care), s. 4 (risks willingly assumed)
- Occupiers’ Liability Act, s. 5 (limits on restricting the duty; sign must be reasonably brought to attention), s. 6 (independent-contractor defence), s. 6.1 (60-day written notice for snow-and-ice injury, added 2020, c. 33), s. 8 (landlord as occupier)
- A residential landlord’s repair-and-maintenance duty also arises under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — cited here as a general pointer; confirm current wording via e-Laws or a lawyer
Ai Tools Real Estate →First-Time Renter Guide →Ontario Home Buying Guide →The Ontario Selling Blueprint →
Frequently Asked Questions
A buyer slipped at my open house. Am I automatically liable?
No. Section 3(1) requires reasonable care in all the circumstances, not a guarantee that no one falls. If you did what a reasonable owner would — cleared the ice, lit the entry, dealt with obvious hazards — you may not be liable even though someone was hurt. The risk lives in the obvious things left undone.
How long does an injured visitor have to sue me?
For a snow-or-ice injury, s.6.1 requires written notice — date, time and location — served personally or by registered mail within 60 days, or the claim is generally barred (limited exceptions apply, such as death of the injured person or a reasonable excuse accepted by a judge). That is much shorter than the usual limitation period and is a key defence.
Can I put all the blame on the company I hired to clear snow?
Only if you meet s.6(1): that engaging them was reasonable, you selected them reasonably, and you took reasonable steps to be satisfied they were competent and the work was properly done. That takes evidence — the contract and service logs — not just a paid invoice. Without it, the defence doesn’t hold.
Does an “enter at your own risk” sign protect me?
Not as a shield. To rely on a restriction, s.5(3) requires reasonable steps to bring it to the person’s attention — a sign no one can see or reach in time usually won’t count. And s.5(1) means a waiver you signed with someone else doesn’t bind a visitor who signed nothing. A sign helps; clearing hazards protects you.
I’m a landlord, not a seller — does this even apply to me?
Yes, through s.8. Where the tenancy makes the landlord responsible for maintenance or repair, the landlord owes the same duty of care for dangers arising from a failure in that responsibility. So the first question is what the lease assigned to you — common areas and lighting you maintain are typically yours; repairs assigned to the tenant generally are not chased back to you.
Can more than one person be the “occupier” at the same time?
Yes — s.1 says the definition applies despite there being more than one occupier of the same premises. In a rental, the landlord, a property manager and the tenant can each be an occupier of the parts they control; at an open house, you and whoever controls access can both qualify. Each is responsible for reasonable care over what they control.
Arthur Zhao
Real Estate Broker · FRI · ABR · SRS · PSA · MCNE · E-PRO · CLHMS & GUILD Elite · REAIS
VP & Branch Manager, Bay Street Group Inc.
Get expert answers on buying, selling, and renting in the GTA
Discover more from GTA Real Estate Broker | Arthur Zhao
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
