Case information

Judgments and orders — Summary judgments — Landlord and tenant law — Residential tenancies — Landlord’s obligations regarding snow removal — Given the tenant-focused protections in the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, can a landlord lawfully delegate its obligation to conduct winter maintenance at a multi-unit residential complex to the tenant without entering into a severable contract with that tenant? — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 — Maintenance Standards, O Reg 517/06, s. 26(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.

The applicant, Marguerite Crete, and her son, Daniel Crete, sued the respondent, the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, for injuries suffered by Mr. Crete when he slipped and fell on ice on the front step of a row house that he and the applicant leased from the respondent. The respondent denied liability for any injuries that Mr. Crete may have suffered, and counterclaimed against the applicant for contribution and indemnity for any amount it was ordered to pay the applicant and Mr. Crete. The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the respondent’s counterclaim, while the respondent brought a cross motion seeking a variety of forms of relief, including a declaration that the applicant and Mr. Crete were responsible for winter maintenance of the property. The motion judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part the respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment. She found that the snow removal provision in the lease was not inconsistent with the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”), and the applicable regulation. Therefore, the lease provision was not void pursuant to s. 4 of the RTA, and its effect was to make the applicant and Mr. Crete responsible for winter maintenance in the area where Mr. Crete fell. The applicant appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that although the motion judge erred in her interpretation of certain provisions of the RTA, she nevertheless correctly found that there is no inconsistency between the snow removal provision of the lease and the RTA. The Court of Appeal thus dismissed the appeal.