Champions With Heart.

Call Us 855-351-1115

Tell us what happened
Contact Us

Are Your Accident Benefits Ontario Claim Needs Met?

Cesar Carranza on April 27, 2026

If you have an active accident benefits claim in Ontario, or you settled one years ago, you may be asking a simple but critical question: are my accident benefits enough?

Ontario’s accident benefits system is designed to provide no-fault coverage after a motor vehicle collision. These benefits can include income replacement, medical and rehabilitation funding, attendant care, and other supports. In theory, they are meant to stabilize your financial and medical situation while you focus on recovery.

In reality, many accident victims discover that their accident benefits claim needs are not fully met. Benefits may be cut off early. Treatment plans may be denied. Income replacement may be capped at a level that does not reflect your real losses. In some cases, people settle quickly without understanding the long-term consequences.

If you are unsure whether your Ontario SABS benefits are sufficient, it may be time to look more closely at your claim.

Understanding How Ontario Accident Benefits Work

Accident benefits in Ontario are governed by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). The version of the SABS that applies to your claim depends on the date of your accident. Different versions provide different benefit levels, limits, and entitlements.

Accident benefits are available regardless of who caused the collision. They are paid by your own automobile insurer (or another insurer determined under priority rules). These benefits are separate from any lawsuit for pain and suffering.

Common Ontario SABS benefits include:  

  • Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) for individuals unable to work because of their injuries
  • Non-Earner Benefits for those not employed at the time of the accident
  • Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits for treatment, therapy, and assistive devices
  • Attendant Care Benefits for personal care assistance
  • Caregiver Benefits in certain circumstances

Each category has strict eligibility criteria and monetary limits. Insurers often require medical documentation to approve or continue benefits. Disputes frequently arise over whether treatment is “reasonable and necessary,” whether a person is substantially unable to work, or whether a claimant meets the definition of a catastrophic impairment.

Because the system is technical and evidence-driven, many legitimate claims are reduced, delayed, or denied.

Accident Benefits vs. a Lawsuit: Understanding the Difference

One of the most common sources of confusion after a motor vehicle collision in Ontario is the difference between accident benefits and a lawsuit. Many people assume they must choose one or the other. That is not the case.

Accident benefits and a lawsuit are two separate legal processes. They serve different purposes, are governed by different rules, and compensate for different types of losses.

Accident Benefits: No-Fault Coverage

Accident benefits are available regardless of who caused the collision. They are paid by your own automobile insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

These benefits are designed to provide immediate financial and medical support. They may include:

  • Income Replacement Benefits if you cannot work
  • Medical and rehabilitation funding
  • Attendant care benefits
  • Non-earner benefits
  • Caregiver benefits in certain cases

You do not have to prove that another driver was negligent to receive accident benefits. However, you must meet strict medical and eligibility criteria, and insurers often require ongoing documentation to continue payments.

Accident benefits are meant to stabilize your situation while you recover. They are not intended to fully compensate you for every loss.

A Lawsuit: Fault-Based Compensation

A lawsuit, often referred to as a tort claim, is brought against the at-fault driver (and typically defended by their insurer). Unlike accident benefits, a lawsuit requires you to prove negligence.

If successful, a lawsuit can provide compensation for losses that accident benefits do not cover, including:

  • Pain and suffering
  • Past and Future income loss beyond SABS limits
  • Loss of competitive advantage in the workforce
  • Past and Future care costs exceeding accident benefit caps
  • Loss of housekeeping capacity

In Ontario, there are also legal thresholds and deductibles that apply to pain and suffering claims. This makes lawsuits more complex than accident benefits claims.

How the Two Claims Work Together

It is common for injured individuals to have both an accident benefits claim and a lawsuit at the same time. The two processes run separately but can affect one another in certain ways, particularly when it comes to income loss and future care calculations.

For example, if your Income Replacement Benefits are capped at $400 per week but your pre-accident earnings were significantly higher, a lawsuit may address the difference over time. Similarly, if your medical and rehabilitation funding reaches its limit, a tort claim may seek additional future care costs.

Understanding the distinction between these two claims is essential when assessing whether your accident benefits are truly meeting your needs. A careful review of both streams of compensation ensures that nothing is overlooked and that your long-term recovery and financial stability are properly considered.

Catastrophic vs. Non-Catastrophic Impairment: Why the Designation Matters

In Ontario’s accident benefits system, one classification can significantly affect the level of support available to you: whether your injuries are considered catastrophic or non-catastrophic under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

This designation is not about how serious your injuries feel. It is a legal definition that determines the amount of funding available for treatment and care.

What Is a Catastrophic Impairment?

A catastrophic impairment is defined under the SABS using specific legal criteria. It can include:

  • Severe traumatic brain injuries
  • Certain spinal cord injuries resulting in paralysis
  • Amputations
  • Significant vision loss
  • Severe psychological impairment
  • A combination of impairments that meet a prescribed threshold

Importantly, what matters most is not just the diagnosis, but the resulting loss of function. Many individuals with seemingly “minor” injuries can experience a profound or even catastrophic loss of function in their daily lives and may still qualify for enhanced benefits under the SABS.

The assessment process is technical. It often requires detailed medical evaluations, specialized testing, and analysis using standardized impairment rating guides.

Because the criteria are complex, disputes frequently arise between treating healthcare providers and insurer-retained assessors.

Why the Designation Changes Available Funding

The difference between catastrophic and non-catastrophic status is substantial.

For non-catastrophic injuries, medical and rehabilitation benefits are subject to strict monetary limits. Attendant care benefits are also capped.

For catastrophic impairments, the available funding increases significantly. Individuals may qualify for:

  • Higher combined limits for medical and rehabilitation benefits
  • Substantially increased attendant care funding
  • Longer access to treatment and support services

For someone living with a brain injury, spinal cord injury, or severe psychological trauma, these increased limits can directly affect their long-term recovery, independence, and quality of life. 

Disputes Over Catastrophic Status

Most often, insurers may whether a person meets the catastrophic threshold. This can result in additional insurer examinations and conflicting medical opinions.

In some cases, individuals with very serious impairments are initially classified as non-catastrophic. Without the higher funding limits, they may struggle to access the therapies, supports, and personal care they require.

A careful review of the medical evidence, functional limitations, and assessment methodology is often necessary when catastrophic status is in dispute.

When a Reassessment May Be Appropriate

Injuries do not always stabilize quickly. Some impairments become clearer over time, particularly in cases involving traumatic brain injury or psychological conditions.

If your condition has evolved since the original determination, it may be appropriate to explore whether a catastrophic impairment assessment should be reconsidered.

Understanding your classification under the SABS is essential when evaluating whether your accident benefits are truly meeting your needs. The difference between catastrophic and non-catastrophic status is not merely technical. It can determine the level of care and financial support available to you for years to come.

Signs Your Accident Benefits May Not Be Meeting Your Needs

You do not have to accept the first decision made by an insurance adjuster. If any of the following situations apply to you, your accident benefits claim needs may not be fully addressed.

You Were Cut Off From Benefits Too Early

One of the most common complaints we hear is: “My accident benefits were cut off.”

An insurer may terminate income replacement or treatment funding based on an insurer’s examination or paper review. Sometimes these decisions are made even though the injured person continues to experience significant symptoms.

If your accident benefits were cut off while you are still unable to work or still require treatment, you may be entitled to challenge that decision. A formal accident benefits review in Ontario can determine whether the termination was justified.

Your Income Replacement Is Too Low

Income Replacement Benefits are subject to statutory formulas and maximums. Many people are surprised to learn that the amount they receive is significantly lower than their pre-accident earnings.

If your benefit does not accurately reflect your income, or if the calculation appears incorrect, your accident benefits may not be enough to cover your essential expenses. In some cases, additional documentation or reassessment can make a meaningful difference.

Your Insurer Denied Recommended Treatment

Another frequent issue involves denied accident benefits in Ontario for medical and rehabilitation services.

Your treating healthcare provider may recommend physiotherapy, psychological counselling, occupational therapy, or assistive devices. The insurer may refuse to fund the treatment, arguing that it is not reasonable or necessary.

When medically supported treatment is denied, recovery can stall. A structured accident benefits review may help determine whether the denial should be overturned.

You Settled the Claim Too Quickly

Some individuals accept a lump-sum settlement of their accident benefits without fully understanding the long-term implications.

A SABS settlement review can help determine whether the settlement was appropriate in light of your injuries and prognosis. Once certain settlements are finalized, reopening them may be difficult. However, in specific circumstances—particularly with older claims—further review may be warranted.

Your Injuries Have Worsened Over Time

Not all injuries improve. Some conditions deteriorate months or even years after a collision.

If your symptoms have worsened, or new complications have emerged, your original accident benefits claim needs may look very different today. In certain cases, reassessment or renewed entitlement may be possible.

When You Can Request an Accident Benefits Review

If you are questioning whether your accident benefits Ontario coverage is sufficient, you may be entitled to seek a review in situations such as:

  • A formal denial of benefits
  • A reduction or termination of weekly payments
  • Disputes over catastrophic impairment designation
  • Disagreements about income calculations
  • Concerns that your insurer relied on incomplete or biased medical evidence

The law requires that insurers follow specific procedural steps before denying or reducing benefits, and any denial must be clear and unequivocal. If the insurance company has not complied with these requirements, the denial or reduction may not be legally valid.

The dispute resolution process is technical and time-sensitive. Missing limitation periods can affect your rights. Acting promptly is essential if you believe your accident benefits claim needs further review.

Can You Reopen an Old Accident Benefits Claim?

Many people assume that once a file is closed, it is closed forever. That is not always the case.

In certain circumstances, it may be possible to reopen an accident benefits claim, particularly if:

  • Benefits were improperly denied
  • Required assessments were never completed
  • The insurer failed to make mandatory offers
  • The claim falls within a specific historical period with unique rules

Insurers are required to follow prescribed procedures when denying benefits, and any denial must be clear and unequivocal. If these requirements are not met, the denial may be invalid, potentially allowing the claim to be revisited.

Older claims are sometimes referred to as cold case accident benefits matters. These files require careful review of the version of the SABS that applied at the time of the accident.

This is especially important for accidents that occurred during the mid-1990s.

Understanding Bill 164 and Its Impact on Older Claims

Between January 1994 and October 1996, Ontario operated under a unique accident benefits regime commonly known as Bill 164 accident benefits. These historical SABS benefits included features that were significantly more generous than later versions.

What Was Bill 164?

Bill 164 replaced the original SABS and introduced enhanced weekly benefits and automatic indexation. Unlike later versions of the SABS, certain weekly benefits were not subject to the same restrictive caps.

Understanding whether your accident occurred during this period is critical when evaluating a potential cold case accident benefits claim.

Why Claims from 1994–1996 May Be Worth More

Under Bill 164:

  • Income Replacement Benefits were calculated at 90% of net weekly income, up to $1,000 per week.
  • Certain benefits were automatically indexed to inflation.
  • Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs) were available to recognize permanent impairment affecting employability.

By contrast, later versions of the SABS reduced maximum weekly amounts and removed some long-term benefit structures.

This means that individuals injured between January 1994 and October 1996 may have been entitled to significantly higher long-term compensation than those injured before or after that window.

Example:

Assume an injured person was earning $1,000 per week net at the time of the accident. Under a post–Bill 164 version of the SABS, Income Replacement Benefits could be capped at $400 per week unless optional coverage was purchased.

Under Bill 164 accident benefits, that same individual could receive 90% of net income — $900 per week — with automatic annual indexation. Over time, the financial difference could be substantial.

Could Your “Cold Case” Claim Qualify for Additional Compensation?

In some Bill 164 cases, insurers were required to make Loss of Earning Capacity Benefit offers at the two-year mark—even if entitlement to weekly benefits was disputed.

If that process did not occur properly, or if benefits were prematurely terminated, there may be grounds for review.

Many people have lived for decades with serious impairments that reduced their earning capacity, without realizing that their historical SABS benefits may have been undervalued.

Example:

If, two years after the accident, a person was earning $1,000 per week before the accident but only $500 per week after returning to part-time work, Bill 164 provided a benefit to make up for some of the lost income.

The benefit starts after two years and is based on the difference between what the person could earn before the accident and what they can earn after. It pays 90% of that difference.

That benefit could continue long-term and was subject to indexation, depending on eligibility and assessment findings. Later versions of the SABS removed this structure.

How We Help Accident Victims Get the Benefits They Deserve

Accident benefits disputes are not just about paperwork. They affect your ability to pay bills, access treatment, and plan for the future.

We offer a free review accident benefits Ontario files to determine:

  • Whether benefits were properly calculated
  • Whether denials were justified
  • Whether weekly benefits were terminated prematurely
  • Whether historical SABS benefits, including Bill 164 accident benefits, were correctly applied

If your accident benefits were denied, cut off, or settled without full understanding of your rights, a careful review may clarify your options.

How Does Bill 164 Affect Older Accident Claims?

Bill 164 can significantly affect older accident claims because of its higher weekly benefit limits and automatic indexation features.

For qualifying accidents between January 1994 and October 1996, long-term Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits could potentially continue for years, subject to specific assessment mechanisms.

Determining whether a historical claim still has viable issues requires detailed examination of the original file, medical evidence, and benefit calculations.

Final Thoughts

Ontario accident benefits are meant to provide support after a collision. However, many people eventually ask: are my accident benefits enough to meet my long-term needs?

If your benefits were denied, reduced, or cut off—or if you are concerned that an old claim was never fully resolved—it may be worth revisiting your file.

Understanding your accident benefits claim needs today could make a meaningful difference in your financial security and recovery.

From Minor Damage to $3,875,000 Settlement

Cesar Carranza on March 3, 2026

Led by Campisi trial lawyers Imtiaz Hosein and Christos Kakaletris.

Early in the case, Mary’s* claim was valued at $300,000.
Just prior to trial, her injury claims settled for $3,875,000.**

That jump didn’t come from some last-minute breakthrough. It came from years of quiet, disciplined trial preparation.

Rather than focus on the property-damage photos, our team built a trial-ready case, step by step. They did not argue with the photos. Instead, they put forward the evidence the photos could not discount: the real impact on Mary’s life.

As the trial date approached, the defence couldn’t keep selling “minor damage” as “minor injury.” They had to confront the real monetary consequences of losing at trial.

How the Defence Tried to Discount Mary’s Case

Mary was stopped in traffic when she was rear-ended. The property damage appeared modest. That modest property damage became the defence narrative: “minor damage, minor injury.”

What the Photos Missed: The Real Loss

What looked minor on the surface had serious and lasting consequences in Mary’s life. The real harm was not visible in the photographs of the vehicles. It showed up in the limitations she faced afterward and in the disruption to her everyday life.

These “invisible” injuries are often minimized because they are easy to label “subjective.” But “subjective” does not mean “not real.” It means the harm shows up in a person’s life, not in a photograph.

Why the Valuation Changed

The “minor damage, minor injury” narrative often accompanies modest offers, and sometimes no offers at all. But our team prepared the case for trial so that, as trial approached, the valuation had to reflect the evidence and the risks of trial, not just the optics of the vehicle damage. That meant:

  • taking the time to understand and present Mary’s day-to-day reality, so her limitations could not be dismissed
  • securing expert evidence that could withstand cross-examination
  • using pre-trial motions and strategies to narrow the fight and deal with evidentiary disputes early

The Settlement

Days before trial, Mary’s injury claims settled for $3,875,000.

Thank you to Mary for the trust she placed in the Campisi LLP team. We hope this resolution provides stability and certainty for her and her family going forward.

At Campisi LLP, we look beneath what is visible on the surface. We regularly act for clients with brain injuries, psychological injuries, chronic pain, and other serious impairments. We secure the evidence needed to make invisible injuries visible and to have cases valued properly. If you are still struggling after a collision, contact our team to request a consultation.

*Client name changed to protect privacy
**Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of each individual case.

Mary’s legal team.

Imtiaz Hosein represents catastrophically injured and disabled clients in tort and accident benefits claims. Known for his tenacious advocacy and client-first approach, he has built a reputation for turning difficult cases into meaningful results, helping clients rebuild their lives and recover the care, income, and independence they deserve. [Read his full bio]

Christos Kakaletris is a personal injury litigator focused on serious and catastrophic claims, known for pairing legal precision with relentless client advocacy. He approaches every file with a commitment to institutional accountability and a drive to push the boundaries of what justice demands. [Read his full bio]

2026 Ontario Auto Insurance Thresholds and Deductibles: What You Need to Know

Cesar Carranza on January 28, 2026

Understanding how statutory thresholds impact your pain and suffering compensation 

Recently, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) published its 2026 Automobile Insurance Indexation Amounts Guidance. This Guidance, effective January 1, 2026, establishes the amounts related to insurance claims that are subject to indexation for 2026. Indexation is tied to the Canadian Consumer Price Index (CPI) and varies year to year. 

The FSRA Guidance impacts the statutory threshold and deductible for determining “non-pecuniary” tort awards arising from the use or operation of an automobile. Such awards are usually referred to as “general” damages and are intended to compensate a collision victim for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life. Damages awards below the threshold amount (for 2026, this amount is $159,708.71) will be subject to a deductible. A similar threshold and deductible are applied to successful claims by family members for loss of care, companionship, and guidance under the Family Law Act (FLA). 

What Does This Mean for You? You Could Win Your Case and Receive Zero Compensation for Pain and Suffering 

The government created these thresholds with the stated goal of controlling insurance costs and reducing what they called “minor” injury claims. In theory, the idea was to keep smaller claims out of court so insurance premiums wouldn’t keep rising. 

In reality, these rules create a serious trap for injury victims. Here’s the problem: many legitimate, life-altering injuries result in general damage awards that fall below the $159,708.71 threshold. When that happens, a massive deductible gets applied and in some cases, you could win your case but walk away with nothing for your pain and suffering. 

This system essentially tells injured people: unless your pain and suffering is valued at over $159,708.71, you’ll lose a significant portion of what a jury thinks you deserve or potentially all of it. It doesn’t matter how much your injury has impacted your daily life, your ability to work, or your quality of life. If the number falls below the threshold, the insurance company gets to keep tens of thousands of dollars that a jury awarded to you. 

Who Benefits? Who Loses? 

The insurance industry benefits enormously from these thresholds. They act as a built-in discount on jury awards, allowing insurers to avoid paying full compensation even when a jury has determined an injury victim deserves it. 

Everyday people lose. The thresholds discourage many legitimate claims from ever being pursued because victims and their lawyers know that even a successful trial could result in zero compensation. Meanwhile, insurance companies continue to profit while injured people struggle with ongoing pain, lost wages, and medical expenses. 

The statutory thresholds were created to control the rising cost of personal injury litigation. In practice, they act as a deterrent to many serious personal injury claims and offer a windfall to the insurance companies. Without knowing it, if a jury awards a plaintiff or family member less than the threshold amount for a given year, that award is automatically subject to the applicable deductible amount. This means that a successful claimant could receive ZERO compensation for pain and suffering, or at least be disentitled to a significant portion of their damages on the merits of the case. 

General damages that do not meet the threshold will be subject to a $47,913.01 deductible in 2026, up from $46,790.05 in 2025. FLA damages that do not meet the threshold will be subject to a $23,956.52 deductible, up from $23,395.04 in 2025. 

Example 1: The plaintiff suffered a fractured right wrist and soft-tissue injuries to his lower back, right knee and hip. His back pain resolved after several months of physiotherapy. At trial it was determined that the ongoing right knee and hip impairment was from a pre-existing condition, not a collision-related injury. After the fracture healed, the plaintiff continued to suffer from wrist pain with mild deformity and reduced grip and pinch strength. 

At trial in 2025, the jury found that the plaintiff had suffered a permanent and serious injury to his wrist and awarded $35,000.00 for pain and suffering. However, since the award was lower than the threshold for 2025, and the deductible at that time was $46,790.05, the plaintiff received nothing for pain and suffering. 

Example 2: The plaintiff suffered from chronic neck and shoulder pain with a “frozen” right shoulder, severe daily headaches, depression and anxiety. Despite ongoing treatment, her condition did not improve, and she could not return to work. 

At trial in 2025, the jury accepted that the plaintiff’s chronic pain had impacted every aspect of her life and awarded $140,000.00 for pain and suffering. However, since the award was lower than the threshold of $155,965.54, a deductible of $46,790.05 was applied, reducing her pain and suffering compensation to $93,209.95. 

If you have been seriously injured in a car accident and have questions or concerns about your legal rights, we are pleased to offer a free consultation. 

Put the experts to work for you. Campisi Injury Lawyers, Champions with Heart! 

Snow Removal Laws Ontario: Who’s Responsible For Removing Snow?

Delaney McCartan on January 19, 2026

Winter in Ontario means more than beautiful snowfall; it brings obligations. Under Ontario’s laws and municipal bylaws, snow and ice removal is both a good practice and often a legal requirement. This article explores snow removal laws in Ontario, clarifies who must clear snow from sidewalks, driveways, and properties (homeowners, landlords or tenants), and explains why it matters for safety, liability and your peace of mind.

Legal Responsibilities for Homeowners Clearing Snow

Homeowners in Ontario, whether living in a detached house, a townhouse, or small building, have responsibilities for snow and ice removal.

  • In many municipalities, local bylaws require property owners to clear adjacent sidewalks within a specified timeframe after snowfall.
  • Homeowners must also ensure driveways, stairs, walkways, and entrances remain free of hazardous accumulations of snow or ice. Failing to do so could create liability and make you responsible if someone slips and falls.
  • While laws vary by municipality, the guiding principle remains: property owners must take reasonable steps to keep their property (and adjacent sidewalks when required) clear and safe during winter.

If you own a home, ensure you remove snow in a timely manner. If you’re a homeowner in a municipality with a sidewalk clearing bylaw, don’t forget the sidewalk.

Who Is Responsible for Snow Removal at a Rental Property?

When a property is rented, whether it’s a single-family home, duplex, townhouse or multi-unit building, the picture can become more complex. Responsibilities can vary based on lease terms, property type, and local laws.
The primary law governing this in Ontario is the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 (the “RTA”). Under this law, landlords are required to maintain the rental property in good repair and ensure it is fit for habitation. Specifically, Section 20(1) of the RTA states: 

“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:

That duty extends beyond the interior. It includes exterior walkways, driveways, entrances and other shared or common areas.

Because of this duty, even if a lease appears to assign snow shoveling to a tenant, such clauses may be unenforceable, at least with respect to common areas. Courts have found that the owner’s maintenance obligation under the RTA cannot be signed away in a standard lease.That said, there are situations where a tenant can have snow removal responsibilities, but only under specific conditions:

Is The Landlord Responsible for Snow Removal?

  • For multi-unit buildings (apartments, condos, duplexes, etc.), and for common areas (driveways, parking lots, shared walkways, building entrances, stairwells), the landlord remains responsible for snow and ice removal.
  • The landlord must clear snow and keep walkways safe. If they fail to do so and someone is injured, the landlord may be held liable.
  • If the lease tries to shift this burden onto tenants, the clause is often unenforceable. In many cases, courts will disregard it if it conflicts with the RTA’s maintenance obligations.

Are Tenants Responsible for Snow Removal?

Tenants may be responsible for snow removal only in limited, clearly defined circumstances:

  • If a tenant rents a single-family home or a unit with exclusive, private walkways, driveway, or backyard/patio, and the lease includes a separate, written agreement assigning snow removal (ideally framed as a contract for services), the tenant may lawfully take on snow removal duties.
  • The agreement must provide appropriate consideration (for example, a rent reduction or separate payment) in return for snow shoveling services.
  • Even when tenants agree to snow removal, landlords should periodically inspect to ensure the work is done properly. Failure to supervise might still lead to liability if hazards remain.
  • Snow or ice on balconies, patios, or designated parking spots (if those are covered by the tenant’s exclusive use) are examples of areas where a tenant might reasonably take responsibility.

In short, unless there is a proper separate agreement and the area is exclusively the tenant’s to control, responsibility generally remains with the landlord.  

Who Is Responsible for Clearing Snow from Sidewalks?

Sidewalks adjacent to properties add another layer of complexity. Responsibility often depends on municipal bylaws rather than just the RTA, and those bylaws vary across Ontario municipalities.

  • Many municipalities require property owners (homeowners or landlords) to clear any sidewalk directly in front of, alongside or behind their building within a set timeframe after snowfall.
  • Failure to comply can result in fines or the municipality stepping in and later billing the property owner.
  • If a property owner fails to clear their sidewalk or inadvertently creates additional hazards (for instance, improper drainage or ice from downspouts freezing onto the sidewalk), they may face liability if someone slips and falls.

For homeowners and landlords, compliance with municipal sidewalk bylaws is as important as complying with provincial standards under the RTA.

Case Law and Legal Precedents

The landmark case Montgomery v. Van (2009 ONCA 808) remains the most cited precedent on this issue. In that case:

  • The lease required the tenant to keep the walkway and stairs free of snow and ice.
  • The tenant slipped and was injured. The court held that, despite the lease clause, the landlord remained liable because the duty to maintain safe premises cannot be waived by a standard lease clause.
  • The court explained that for a tenant to lawfully assume snow removal duties, the agreement must be a separate contract for services, not just a clause in a standard tenancy agreement.

This precedent has shaped how landlords and tenants approach snow and ice removal in Ontario rentals, especially for shared or common areas.

Practical Steps for Homeowners, Landlords & Tenants to Minimize Risk

Whether you own your property or rent, and whether you are a homeowner, landlord or tenant, winter snow brings real risk. Here are practical steps to minimize liability, avoid fines, and keep everyone safe.

  1. Know the local bylaws. Municipal snow removal bylaws vary across Ontario. Check your local bylaws for sidewalk-clearing deadlines and whether responsibility lies with the property owner or the municipality.
  2. Review (or draft) your lease carefully. If you are a landlord and want to assign snow shoveling to a tenant, consider drafting a separate contract for services. Include clear terms: which areas, what services, when, and what compensation is offered.
  3. Maintain documentation. Record all snow removal efforts, including date, time, areas cleared, weather conditions, and photos. This can be vital evidence if someone slips, falls, or if a municipality complains.
  4. Communicate with tenants proactively. Whether you hire a snow removal company, assign duties to a tenant, or handle the work yourself, let tenants know the plan in advance of the snow season.
  5. Address icy hazards beyond just snow. Clearing snow may not be enough. Ice buildup, freezing rain, or downspouts that funnel water onto sidewalks can all lead to slippery surfaces.
  6. Consider professional snow removal services. For landlords or homeowners with multiple properties, or for those unable to shovel safely, hiring a snow removal service can reduce risk and ensure compliance.

Final Thoughts on Snow Removal Laws in Ontario

Winter in Ontario brings many joys: fresh snow, cozy evenings, and winter sports. But it also brings legal obligations. Snow removal laws in Ontario are not just a concern for lawyers. They affect homeowners, landlords, tenants, and municipalities alike.

The duty to clear snow and ice is grounded in both provincial law (through the RTA) and municipal bylaws (for sidewalk clearing). For rental properties, the default responsibility lies with the landlord, especially for common areas. While tenants can sometimes assume snow removal duties, this requires a separate, properly drafted agreement.

At Campisi LLP, we understand how dangerous slips and falls can be, especially for vulnerable individuals. We encourage all homeowners, landlords, and tenants to take snow and ice removal seriously. If you or a loved one has suffered an injury due to unsafe snow or ice conditions, whether at a rental property or private home, you may have grounds to seek legal advice and hold the responsible party accountable.

If you would like our help or want to understand your rights under the law, we are here for you.

What is the Occupiers’ Liability Act in Ontario?

Lisa Bishop on January 16, 2026

Accidents happen, but when they occur on someone else’s property, the law in Ontario provides clear guidance on who may be held responsible. The Occupiers’ Liability Act is the legislation that outlines the duties of property owners, landlords, business operators, and others who are considered “occupiers” of premises. Understanding this Act is key for anyone injured on someone else’s property, whether it was a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk or a trip over a loose tile in a store. In this article, we explain what the Occupiers’ Liability Act is, who it applies to, and what your rights and responsibilities are under the law. 

What is the Occupiers’ Liability Act? 

The Occupiers’ Liability Act in Ontario is a provincial law that sets out the responsibilities of individuals and organizations that control or possess property. Its core purpose is to ensure that anyone entering a property is kept reasonably safe while on the premises. 

Unlike traditional negligence laws, which are often based on common law principles, the Occupiers’ Liability Act codifies the legal duties in clear, accessible terms. It applies to all types of premises, including: 

  • Private homes 
  • Commercial buildings 
  • Rental units 
  • Public spaces such as parks or sidewalks 
  • Recreational lands 

Who is Considered an “Occupier”? 

An “occupier” is broadly defined under the Act. It refers not only to property owners but also to anyone who has physical possession of the premises or control over the condition of the property, its activities, or the persons allowed to enter. This can include: 

  • Homeowners 
  • Tenants 
  • Property managers 
  • Business operators 
  • Landlords (in certain cases) 

For example, if a store leases space in a mall, the store owner may be considered an occupier of the interior space, while the mall management may be the occupier of common areas such as hallways and entrances. 

What is the Duty of Care in Ontario? 

The Act imposes a duty of care on occupiers to take reasonable steps to ensure that people entering the premises are safe. Specifically, Section 3(1) states: 

“An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises… are reasonably safe while on the premises.” 

This duty applies to any lawful visitor, including customers, tenants, delivery workers, and even social guests. It includes maintaining safe conditions, performing timely repairs, warning of hazards, and preventing foreseeable injuries. 

Examples of Reasonable Care 

  • Shovelling and salting icy walkways during winter 
  • Fixing broken steps or railings 
  • Cleaning spills promptly 
  • Posting warning signs for wet floors or renovations 
  • Ensuring proper lighting in hallways and stairwells 

Failing to meet this duty of care could result in legal liability if someone is injured. 

Who Can Be Held Liable Under the Act? 

Multiple parties may be considered occupiers at the same time. Liability can extend to: 

  • Homeowners who do not maintain safe conditions on their property 
  • Landlords, depending on whether they retain control over common areas 
  • Tenants, if the rental agreement gives them control over specific areas 
  • Business owners are responsible for the safety of customers and staff 
  • Condominium corporations, for shared spaces like lobbies or parking garages 

For instance, in a rental apartment building, the landlord may be responsible for maintaining staircases and entryways, while a tenant may be responsible for snow removal from a private walkway if explicitly agreed upon in a separate contract. 

This ties directly into snow removal laws in Ontario, which often intersect with occupiers’ liability. If snow or ice is not cleared and someone is injured, the person responsible for maintenance, under the Act or a lease agreement, could be held liable. 

Common Situations Covered by the Act 

Slip and Fall Accidents 

Slip and falls are among the most common types of claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. These can result from: 

  • Icy or snowy walkways 
  • Wet or slippery floors 
  • Loose carpeting or mats 
  • Poor lighting 
  • Cluttered pathways 

If you’ve experienced a fall, our steps below on what to do after a slip and fall can help you take the right steps. 

Injuries on Private or Commercial Property 

Whether you’re visiting a friend or shopping at a retail store, you expect the premises to be safe. Common hazards include: 

  • Broken stairs 
  • Missing handrails 
  • Unsafe balconies 
  • Objects falling from shelves 

Occupiers are expected to either remove hazards or post clear warnings. 

Recreational Properties 

The Act also applies to recreational properties, such as trails, skating rinks, or sports fields. However, there’s a distinction when it comes to recreational land made available for free public use. In such cases, the occupier owes a lower duty of care, similar to the duty owed to a trespasser: not to create danger or act with reckless disregard. 

Exceptions and Limitations Under the Act 

While the Occupiers’ Liability Act is broad in scope, there are key exceptions: 

Trespassers 

The duty of care does not extend in the same way to trespassers. That said, occupiers still have a duty not to deliberately create danger or act with reckless disregard for the safety of anyone on the premises, even if they are trespassing. 

Voluntary Assumption of Risk 

In some cases, an individual may knowingly accept the risks associated with entering a property. For example, someone who attends a hockey game at an outdoor rink might be seen as accepting some degree of risk. However, this does not mean the occupier is off the hook completely. 

Liability Waivers 

Many businesses use liability waivers to limit responsibility, especially in gyms, trampoline parks, or ski resorts. While these waivers can offer some protection, they are not foolproof and do not override gross negligence or failure to meet a basic duty of care. 

What Should You Do If You Have Been Injured on Someone Else’s Property? 

If you’ve been hurt because a property was unsafe, the steps you take immediately afterward can make a significant difference in your ability to recover compensation: 

  1. Report the Incident: Notify the property owner or manager as soon as possible. 
  1. Document the Scene: Take photos of what caused your injury (e.g., icy sidewalk, broken tile). 
  1. Gather Contact Information: Get the names of witnesses and anyone else involved. 
  1. Seek Medical Attention: Even if your injury seems minor at first. 
  1. Keep Records: Save medical reports, prescriptions, and any communication with the property owner. 
  1. Consult a Lawyer: A lawyer can help you understand your rights under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and assess whether you may have a claim. 

How Campisi LLP Can Help 

At Campisi LLP, we represent individuals who have suffered serious injuries because someone failed to maintain a safe environment. We understand how devastating a preventable accident can be, and we are committed to helping our clients recover physically, emotionally and financially. 

We handle all types of premises liability claims, including: 

  • Slip and falls on ice or wet floors 
  • Injuries in apartment buildings or condos 
  • Falls due to poor lighting or broken stairs 
  • Accidents in public or recreational spaces 

Our legal team will investigate the circumstances, gather evidence, and work with medical professionals to understand the full impact of your injury. We are committed to providing clear guidance, compassionate care, and strong legal support throughout your case. 

Final Thoughts on the Occupiers’ Liability Act in Ontario 

The Occupiers’ Liability Act in Ontario plays a vital role in protecting the public. Whether you’re entering a store, renting an apartment, or walking on a sidewalk, the law expects the person or organization in control of that space to take reasonable steps to keep it safe. 

If they fail to meet that standard and someone is injured as a result, the law provides a path to accountability. That path can be complicated, especially when multiple parties are involved or when maintenance responsibilities are unclear. But with the right legal support, injury victims can seek justice and secure the compensation they need to move forward. 

If you or someone you love has been injured on someone else’s property, Campisi LLP is here to help. We will review your situation, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way. 

From Overlooked to Life Changing: A Case Transformed by Deeper Investigation

Cesar Carranza on July 28, 2025

Cheryl’s case looked straightforward. Settlement offers reflected that assumption. The reality was far more complex — and far more valuable.

Cheryl, a devoted grandmother, faced mounting challenges after a serious car accident. Initial settlement discussions centered around $85,000 total. Campisi LLP recognized the case’s true complexity and secured $822,765 — nearly 10 times that amount.

Read More about From Overlooked to Life Changing: A Case Transformed by Deeper Investigation

Botox for Post-Traumatic Migraines: Effective Treatment After Car Accident Brain Injury

Cesar Carranza on July 22, 2025

If you’ve suffered a brain injury in a motor vehicle collision, or other incident and are experiencing chronic headaches, you’re not alone. Post-traumatic headaches affect up to 85% of patients with brain injuries, with many experiencing more than 15 headache days per month. Migraine headache is the most common type of post-traumatic headache. While many people associate Botox with cosmetic treatments, it’s actually Health Canada-approved as an effective second-line treatment for chronic migraines—including those that develop after brain injuries from personal injury accidents.

We recently spoke with Dr. Chantal Vaidyanath, Physician Lead of the Head Injury Clinic at St. Michael’s Hospital, about this promising treatment option. Dr. Vaidyanath specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of post-traumatic migraines and given her extensive experience with Botox injections for spasticity management, she is now offering Botox injections for migraine management. The insights shared in this article are based on our conversation with her about how this treatment can help brain injury patients reclaim their quality of life.

Read More about Botox for Post-Traumatic Migraines: Effective Treatment After Car Accident Brain Injury

Myelopathy: The Overlooked Injury That Could Impact Your Accident Compensation

Peter Murray on December 10, 2024

When you’ve been involved in an accident, the physical and emotional toll can be overwhelming. Pain, discomfort, and changes in your body’s function may not be immediately apparent, but as symptoms progress, it becomes crucial to understand their cause. One such condition often overlooked by physicians—and in turn, by the legal system—is myelopathy.

Read More about Myelopathy: The Overlooked Injury That Could Impact Your Accident Compensation