A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision provides a useful reminder that slip-and-fall cases are not limited to icy sidewalks or wet floors.
In Crews v. Tres Hermanas Inc., 2026 ONSC 2870, the Court considered an injury caused by an unsafe set of steps leading down from a deck. The plaintiff fell when a step flipped upward, causing a serious wrist injury.
This case is important for property owners, insurers, and injured people because it shows how Ontario courts assess responsibility under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. It also illustrates that a relatively simple hazard, such as an unsecured step, can lead to a significant damages award when the injury has lasting consequences.
The plaintiff was a guest on the defendant’s property. While leaving the deck, she used a set of steps. While they were in use, one of the steps moved, causing her to fall and injure her wrist.
It needed to be determined whether the property owner had taken reasonable care to ensure the premises were safe. Luckily, for the plaintiff, The Court found that the defendant was an “occupier” of the property and therefore owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care for her safety while she was on the premises.
This duty does not require perfection. A property owner is not automatically liable every time someone falls. However, occupiers must take reasonable steps to identify and address hazards that could foreseeably injure people using the property.
In this case, the Court found that unsecured steps created a foreseeable risk of harm.
In the end, in Court, it was determined that the steps were unsafe because they were not properly secured.
A step that can shift, tilt, or flip when used presents an obvious danger. People using stairs or steps reasonably expect them to remain stable underfoot.
The Court found that the defendant either installed, or permitted the installation of, steps that were not properly attached to the deck. That created a dangerous condition. Because the plaintiff’s fall occurred when the step moved under her, the unsafe condition was directly connected to her injury.
This is a key point in many occupiers’ liability cases. The question is not simply whether an accident happened on someone’s property. The injured person must prove that there was a dangerous condition, that the occupier failed to take reasonable care, and that the hazard caused the injury. In Crews, the evidence supported that connection.
Property owners and insurers often argue that an injured person was partly responsible for their own fall. This is called contributory negligence. For example, a defendant may argue that the plaintiff was distracted, rushing, wearing inappropriate footwear, ignoring an obvious danger, or failing to use available supports such as a handrail.
In this case, the Court rejected contributory negligence. The plaintiff had taken reasonable care while using the steps. There was no finding that she was distracted or acting carelessly. The Court also noted that there was no handrail available.
That finding matters because contributory negligence can reduce a damages award. If a plaintiff is found 25% responsible, for example, the damages may be reduced by 25%. Here, the Court did not reduce the award on that basis.
In total, the Court awarded a total of $280,000 in damages. The award included compensation for pain and suffering, income loss, housekeeping assistance, and future care costs.
The size of the award shows that wrist injuries can be serious. A wrist injury may sound minor compared to some other injuries, but it can significantly affect daily life, work capacity, household tasks, recreation, and independence. For people whose jobs require lifting, gripping, typing, tools, or repetitive hand use, a lasting wrist injury can have major consequences.
Crews v. Tres Hermanas Inc. reinforces several important principles in Ontario slip-and-fall litigation.
Occupiers must ensure that stairs, steps, decks, walkways, and other common access points are reasonably safe. A temporary or informal set of steps can still create liability if it is unstable or poorly secured.
Injured plaintiffs should not assume they have no case simply because the hazard seems ordinary. The legal question is whether the condition was unsafe and whether reasonable care was taken to prevent harm.
Damages in slip-and-fall cases depend on the impact of the injury, not just the mechanism of the fall. Where an injury causes ongoing pain, reduced function, loss of income, or a need for assistance, the award can be substantial.
For personal injury lawyers, this decision is a helpful example of how courts approach unsafe premises, causation, contributory negligence, and damages where a fall results from a structural hazard. For property owners, it is a reminder that basic maintenance and safe installation are essential. For injured people, it shows that a fall caused by unsafe steps may give rise to meaningful compensation where the evidence supports the claim.
KINGSTON | OTTAWA | PERTH | CARLETON PLACE | PEMBROKE
Consistently ranked as a Top 10 Injury Law Firm by Canadian Lawyer Magazine.
SOCIAL MEDIA:
ALMONTE | AJAX | AMHERSTVIEW | ARNPRIOR | ATHENS | BANCROFT | BELLEVILLE | BOWMANVILLE | BROCKVILLE | CARLETON PLACE | COBDEN | COBOURG | CORNWALL | CARDINAL | DURHAM | ELGIN | HASTINGS | HAWKESBURY | IROQUOIS | KANATA | KEMPTVILLE | KAWARTHA LAKES | KINGSTON | LINDSAY | MORRISBURG | NAPANEE | NEPEAN | NORTHUMBERLAND | NUNAVUT | ORLEANS | OTTAWA | PEMBROKE | PERTH| PETERBOROUGH | PICKERING | PICTON | PORT HOPE | PRESCOTT | RENFREW | SMITHS FALLS | STITTSVILLE | TRENTON | WHITBY
ALMONTE | AJAX | AMHERSTVIEW | ARNPRIOR | ATHENS | BANCROFT | BELLEVILLE | BOWMANVILLE | BROCKVILLE | CARLETON PLACE | COBDEN | COBOURG | CORNWALL | CARDINAL | DURHAM | ELGIN | HASTINGS | HAWKESBURY | IROQUOIS | KANATA | KEMPTVILLE | KAWARTHA LAKES | KINGSTON | LINDSAY | MORRISBURG | NAPANEE | NEPEAN | NORTHUMBERLAND | NUNAVUT | ORLEANS | OTTAWA | PEMBROKE | PERTH| PETERBOROUGH | PICKERING | PICTON | PORT HOPE | PRESCOTT | RENFREW | SMITHS FALLS | STITTSVILLE | TRENTON | WHITBY
