Case information

Torts — Duty of care — Occupiers’ liability — Reasonably foreseeable harm for occupiers — What is the appropriate standard of care for municipalities to prevent electric shocks and other injuries from occurring at the facilities they operate? — What should be the standard of care for electric shocks? — Should the concept of “reasonably foreseeable harm” widen or narrow the scope of an occupier's duty of care, as found in the applicable provincial legislation — What kinds of risks may be “reasonably foreseen” and thus attract the duty to ensure reasonable safety? —Occupiers’ Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2, s. 3(1).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2012, the applicant Zoe Onley was electrocuted and injured near a light pole on property owned by the respondent, the Town of Whitby. The light pole was damaged by an earlier lightning strike, which caused electricity to leak into the ground where Ms. Onley sat. Ms. Onley and her parents commenced an action in damages against the Town, arguing that it failed to take reasonable steps to inspect and maintain its light poles, and that the Town breached its duty of care under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act (“OLA”).

The trial judge dismissed the Onley family’s action, on the basis that the type of damage sustained was not reasonably foreseeable, and that the Town had met its the standard of care pursuant to the OLA. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the Onley family’s appeal. It held that the trial judge had correctly set out and applied the standard of care analysis.