In Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., the court determined whether it was the tenant or the landlord’s responsibility to clear ice from the front doorsteps of a rented Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) property.[1]

Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiffs in the case, a mother and son who were OCHC tenants, sued OCHC for the son’s injuries after he slipped and fell on the front doorstep of their unit. They claimed that it was OCHC’s responsibility to clear ice and snow from their front doorstep. The plaintiffs argued that the lease provision 6(d) requiring them to remove snow violated s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), which places the responsibility on landlords to maintain the rented premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. Consequentely, they claimed the provision was void under s. 4(1) of the RTA, making the landlord responsible for snow and ice removal.[2]

Provision 6(d) to the lease stated:

(d) The Landlord is [ ] is not [X] responsible for snow removal from driveways [X] common laneways [  ]. In singles, doubles and row housing, the Tenant is responsible for snow removal from the front and back doors of the Rented Premises to the main walkways.[3]

Section 20(1) of the RTA provides:

Landlord’s responsibility to repair

20 (1) A landlord is responsible for providing and maintaining a residential complex, including the rental units in it, in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and for complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.  2006, c. 17, s. 20 (1).[4]

Section 4(1) of the RTA reads as follows:

            Provisions conflicting with Act void

4 (1) Subject to subsection 12.1 (11) and section 194, a provision in a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with this Act or the regulations is void.  2006, c. 17, s. 4; 2017, c. 13, s. 1.[5]

The plaintiffs argued that this violation of the RTA made the landlord responsible for maintaining the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation. They also argued that “snow removal” was not defined in the lease and thus did not include the removal of ice.[6] They relied on Montgomery v Van, claiming their front step was an “exterior common area” under s. 26(1) of the former Maintenance Standards, O. Reg. 517/06, which required landlords to remove unsafe ice/snow accumulations from such areas.[7]

In applying the principles of contract interpretation from Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., to the lease, the Court interpreted “snow removal” as applying to the removal of snow in all of its states, including snow, ice, and slush.[8] Since snow turns into ice or slush, the Court found that it would be absurd for the person responsible for snow removal to not also be responsible for removing ice.[9] Clearing the front step fell within the scope of the lease and matched the tenants’ 28-year practice of clearing it themselves.[10] The court determined that the front step was an exclusive-use area, a finding supported by the tenants’ decorating it like a personal patio with no shared access. Finally, the Court held that snow and ice removal does not fall under s. 20(1) of the RTA but under s. 33, which makes tenants responsible for the ordinary cleanliness of the premises.

Section 33 of the RTA provides:

Tenant’s responsibility for cleanliness

33 The tenant is responsible for ordinary cleanliness of the rental unit, except to the extent that the tenancy agreement requires the landlord to clean it.  2006, c. 17, s. 33.[11]

In determining this, the court upheld the lease provision and concluded the tenant plaintiffs bore responsibility.[12]

The plaintiffs appealed the motion judge’s decision.

Ontario Court of Appeal

On appeal, the tenant appellants argued that the motion judge erred in finding that the snow removal provision was not inconsistent with the RTA.[13] The appellants maintained that the snow removal provision in their lease agreement was void in accordance with section 4(1) of the RTA and that OCHC was responsible for clearing the snow in the area in question.[14]

The Court of Appeal found that although the motion judge erred in her interpretation of section 20(1) and 33 of the RTA, she nevertheless correctly found that there is no inconsistency between the snow removal provision and the RTA.[15] Specifically, the Court of Appeal stated the following:

Respectfully, the motion judge adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the scope of s. 20(1) of the RTA by focusing on the landlord’s obligation in that subsection to maintain a residential complex in a “good state of repair”. The motion judge failed to take account of the fact that s. 20(1) also requires the landlords to comply with “health, safety, housing and maintenance standards”. The applicable maintenance standards are set out in the Maintenance Standards Regulation, which deals expressly at s. 26(1), with a landlord’s obligation to clear snow and ice in a residential complex. It follows that s. 20(1) of the RTA does encompass a landlord’s responsibility to clear snow and ice in a residential complex, albeit in accordance with the applicable standards set by the Regulation. The corollary is that the responsibility to clear snow and ice is not encompassed within the tenant’s obligation for “ordinary cleanliness of the rental unit” under s. 33 of the RTA.

While the motion judge erred in her interpretation of ss.20(1) and 33 of the RTA, she correctly found that s. 26(1) the Maintenance Standards Regulation only requires a landlord to clear snow from exterior common areas in a residential complex, and not areas used exclusively by individual tenants.[16]

The appellants sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but leave was denied.[17]

Conclusion

When assessing liability in a residential slip and fall case, the courts will closely examine the lease agreement between the parties. If any provision of the lease agreement is inconsistent with the RTA and/or the applicable regulations, then that portion of the lease agreement will be deemed void by operation of section 4(1) of the RTA. Accordingly, lease language matters and it is important that leases be reviewed in consideration of the RTA after a slip and fall claim has commenced.

 

[1] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at para 16.

[2] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at para 19.

[3] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at para 26.

[4] Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 at s. 20(1).

[5] Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 at s. 4(1).

[6] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at para 30.

[7] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at para 39 citing Montgomery v. Van, 2009 ONCA 808 (CanLII).

[8] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at paras 31-32 citing Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 at para 47; Maintenance Standards, O Reg 198/98, s 26.

[9] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at para 32.

[10] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at para 63.

[11] Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 at s. 33.

[12] Crete et al. v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation et al., 2023 ONSC 5141 (CanLII), at paras 61 and 64.

[13] Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2024 ONCA 459 (CanLII), at para 5.

[14] Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2024 ONCA 459 (CanLII), at para 5.

[15] Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2024 ONCA 459 (CanLII), at para 8.

[16] Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2024 ONCA 459 (CanLII), at paras 21-22.

[17] Marguerite Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2025 CanLII 5349 (SCC)