Not legal advice, as usual. ( Disclaimer :
this sorta s**t doesn't usually happen to us out here in rural lakefront, but I used to live in places where it often did in Hogtown . . . .)
As often noted it’s not so easy for 3rd party crime victims to
successfully sue for
alleged negligent security conditions after criminal injury by unknown third parties.
That’s unless the crime for example can be established as sufficiently caused by
want of due care as an OCCUPIER including by such OPERATOR’S SECURITY CONTRACTOR. It’s a ‘BUT FOR’ connection. A victim plaintiff bears the onus of establishing a NEXUS - ( ‘but for ‘ ) - causally connecting the crime injury or loss to a negligent want of due care or contract breach - such to be on the balance of probabilities more likely than not.
BUT trying to make that connection, may not convince a judge or adjudicator. That's even with counsel & highly credible expert testimony for the plaintiff and amidst some crime-vulnerable scenarios.
ONSC offers an arguably alternative expression here - ? making the leap ? - to further conclude that however short of the duty of care here, anything omitted by this occupier
could not have prevented this crime & the resultant injury. This arguably puts a site specific spin on the specifics, a non-identical expression of the 'But For' requirement above
( " . . . [105] I find in the case at bar that even if all the proper steps to fulfill their duty of care had been done by the defendants, this incident could not have been prevented." )
There's an irony.
Until themselves sued as an occupier, potential victims may speculate that such legal burden on claimants ARGUABLY WEAKENS THE INCENTIVES ON OWNERS ( & SECURITY ) to apply enough bucks & ongoing labour to keep reasonably safe ANYONE WHO ENTERS.
( That’s a duty of care - apparently even owed to trespassers who are owed a lower duty of care - unless the general DUTY OF CARE - legislated to keep reasonably safe - can be slope-shouldered or lowered or proven sufficiently pre-empted by adequate notice or contract. SEE
OLA Ontario’s
Occupiers Liability Act RSO 1990 ch O.2 & resultantly into Ontario's
Negligence Act RSO 1990 ch N.1 )
Background
ONSC Ontario Superior Court has rejected a claim against the
City of Brantford as owner / occupier of a centretown PARKADE
as well as against its former security contractor ROMEX.
Almost EIGHT YEARS after the quickie criminal attack on the plaintiff and after five days of Hearings,
ONSC has ruled that in February 2012 both parkade owner Brantford and its then-security contractor Romex
were indeed negligent in their security operations and procedures. BUT that judge goes on to rule that the victim of the apparently unprovoked Feb 2012 attack, is out of luck.
That’s despite professional counsel & expert professional testimony supporting the claim, as well as findings of substantial gaps in security & shortfall of credible enough prior risk mitigation reviews.
The negligent shortfall is cited to include failing to prudently conduct a risk / threat review cited as mandated by 2010 legislation but cited ignored here until more than 6 years later.
It may NOT be easy to FACTUALLY ENOUGH CONNECT A CRIME EVENT SPECIFICALLY to chronic presence of under-addressed ‘urban-decay’ conditions. To conditions like vagrancy, homeless overnight squatting, etc. Nor to obstructed sightlines at stairwell entrances nor to such vulnerable stairwells themselves lacking even phony CCTVs nor signage to attempt deterrence of crime.
Interestingly Brantford’s large municipal parkade is testified to have had signage & 24 functional CCTV CAMERAS - albeit un-monitored - but unfortunately none at the visibility-impaired stairwell entrance where the un-identified perpetrators suddenly attacked the entering plaintiff.
Absence of tracking sensors ( "Tour Trax" devices ) within the sight-obstructed stairwells is also cited implying to 'de-activate' the stairwells from verification by onsite security’s regular rounds.
BUT FOR those shortfalls, would the attack have occurred ? Maybe NOT an easy question especially where the attackers fled without capture ; what sorta crime was this really ? Was it related to urban-decay issues which the security regime could not eradicate ? . . . Apparently - whatever it was - a crime which ONSC decides ". . .could not have been prevented." - unquote
Anyway the written decision takes a pleasant trip including through
S.C.C. Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Rankin ( juvenile carthieves crash 50 Km away
https://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&id=18774&catid=9#18774 ) & Clements ( 'what causes ?' ). That's even back to venerable Commonwealth WAGON MOUND decisions ( Harboured vessel’s discharge of fuel happens to get followed by Aussie dock fire & damage to other vessels moored nearby amidst welding sparks; some but not all damage victims come up short after years of merry landmark litigation . . .

Respectfully WORTH A READ and of course - like early rounds of Wagon Mound, Rankin & Clements - may NOT be 'the final word'.
Parkade security is far from a sure thing especially at large downtown sites with "urban-decay" indicators. Toughening victims' legal remedies may be good for condo insurers & security contractors. BUT is it always good for user safety ?
Teglas v. City of Brantford et al, 2020 ONSC 7408 issued Dec 1/20
http://canlii.ca/t/jbwht