A person slips on ice while reaching for a car door. Is that an automobile accident, a property maintenance case, or both?
That question reached the Ontario Court of Appeal in Diep v. Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc., 2026 ONCA 424. The Court released its decision on June 16, 2026.
The case illustrates an important distinction. Qualifying for car insurance benefits does not automatically change the nature of a lawsuit against a property owner. For someone injured in a parking lot, that distinction may affect how their personal injury claim proceeds and which insurance rules apply.
How a Slip and Fall in a Markham Parking Lot Led to Two Legal Proceedings
In December 2017, a man parked at a convenience store in Markham. He went inside, bought lottery tickets and returned to his vehicle.
After unlocking the car, he reached for the door handle. He slipped on snow or ice and suffered serious injuries.
The man applied to his automobile insurer for statutory accident benefits. These are benefits available under Ontario’s automobile insurance system. Depending on the circumstances and coverage, they may help pay for treatment, rehabilitation or lost income.
His insurer initially denied the application. The Licence Appeal Tribunal later found that he qualified for benefits. The tribunal is the provincial body that decides certain disputes over automobile insurance benefits.
Separately, the injured man sued the parking lot owner and its winter maintenance contractor. He alleged that they had failed to maintain the parking lot properly.
This second proceeding concerned negligence and occupiers’ liability. Occupiers’ liability is the law governing the safety duties of people who possess or control property. An occupier is not necessarily the registered owner.
Why the Property Defendants Wanted the Car Insurance Benefits Deducted
The parking lot owner and maintenance contractor argued that the two proceedings were connected.
The tribunal had classified the incident as an automobile accident for benefit purposes. The defendants said this should affect any damages awarded in the property lawsuit.
They relied on section 267.8 of Ontario’s Insurance Act. In certain automobile-related lawsuits, that provision requires deductions for specified benefits.
Their argument was straightforward: if the man received accident benefits, those amounts should reduce any damages they might owe.
The defendants also challenged a claim by OHIP. That claim sought recovery of certain publicly funded healthcare costs from the defendants. This type of recovery claim is called subrogation. In simple terms, it allows an insurer to pursue repayment from another party in certain circumstances.
What the Ontario Court of Appeal Decided in Diep
The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeals.
The judges examined what the lawsuit against the parking lot owner and contractor was actually about. Its central allegation concerned snow and ice maintenance. The car’s presence was incidental to that claim.
As a result, the Court found that the automobile insurance deduction provision did not apply to this particular lawsuit.
The earlier tribunal decision did not change that conclusion. It had answered a different question: whether the injured man qualified for automobile accident benefits.
The Court also found that the Health Insurance Act did not bar OHIP’s recovery claim in these circumstances.
For a fuller account of the ruling, see the Ontario Bar Association’s summary of Diep.
What the Decision Means for Ontario Parking Lot Slip and Fall Claims
The distinction matters for someone hurt in a parking lot in Ottawa, Kingston or elsewhere in Ontario.
A vehicle may be involved in the events surrounding an injury without being the basis of every resulting legal claim. The court must examine the claim and the legislation governing it.
However, Diep does not establish that every fall beside a vehicle qualifies for accident benefits. Eligibility depends on the facts and the applicable insurance rules.
The decision also did not determine whether the parking lot owner or contractor was negligent. It resolved the defendants’ arguments about deductions and OHIP’s claim. It was not a trial judgment awarding the injured man compensation.
Nor does the ruling eliminate every rule against recovering twice for the same loss. The Court addressed the application of particular statutory provisions to this particular lawsuit.
Why Early Evidence Matters After a Parking Lot Slip and Fall
Snow and ice conditions rarely stay the same for long. A parking lot may be plowed, salted or cleared soon after an accident.
If you’re injured, get medical attention. Take photographs when it’s safe to do so. Identify witnesses and report the fall to the business or property manager.
Keep the footwear you were wearing. Record where you parked, where you fell and what the ground looked like.
Ontario’s 60-Day Notice Requirement for Snow and Ice Injuries
Ontario’s current Occupiers’ Liability Act also includes a special notice requirement for certain snow- and ice-related claims. Written notice generally must be served within 60 days on an occupier or relevant snow-removal contractor. The statute specifies how notice must be delivered and provides exceptions.
That requirement took effect in January 2021. It should not be treated as a rule that applied to the December 2017 fall in Diep.
For more information about how property-related injury claims work, read our guide to injuries on someone else’s property in Ottawa.
Speak with an Ontario Personal Injury Lawyer About a Parking Lot Injury
A fall near a vehicle can raise questions about property maintenance, insurance coverage and the parties involved. The right approach depends on the details.
If you were injured in Ottawa, Kingston or elsewhere in Ontario, we can help you understand your options. Contact Bergeron Clifford Injury Lawyers to arrange a free consultation
