A landlord does not need to maintain the access to his dwellings free of snow or ice at all times

The Régie du logement recently ruled that an owner in charge of the building maintenance was not responsible for the fall of one of his tenants, though she had slipped on the icy stairs leading to her apartment.

On February 20, 2018, the tenant left her residence to walk her dog during a shower of freezing rain. When she returned, she fell on the outside staircase giving access to her unit, broke a rib and felt ill afterwards. She was later taken to the hospital by paramedics who, according to her, had to spread abrasives on the stairs to secure them.

The tenant held the owner of the dwelling accountable for her fall, since he had been responsible of the maintenance of the access. She therefore filed an application with the Régie du logement and demanded more than $ 3,800 in damages.

The owner defended himself: he presented a snow removal contract signed with a specialized company, and had one of the representatives testify. The witness claimed that, on that day, his teams had serviced that building, given the forecast of freezing rain. He then presented an operation report, which confirmed his statements. The owner felt that he had taken the necessary steps, given the weather conditions, to guarantee relatively safe access to the dwellings of his tenants.

Faced with two versions of the facts, the Régie first recalled that it was the tenant’s obligation to meet the burden of proof. She had to establish a causal link between the damages suffered and the alleged non-performance of obligations in order to obtain compensation.

However, the commissioner stated that the mere presence of snow or ice was not enough to justify the owner's liability. The tenant lives in Quebec, a province known for its harsh winters, and should know how to protect themselves from its effects. In addition, the tenant fell after returning from her walk with her dog. Did she not notice ice and freezing rain when she was outside?

Finally, the commissioner noted that the owner only had to present an obligation of means. Given the intervention of his provider on the day of the fall of the tenant, the landlord was considered to have taken reasonable means to maintain the access to the building. The tenant's request was rejected.