Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
OCCUPIER LIABILITY NIGHTMARE; errant skateboard injures another DRUMMOND v CADILLAC 2018/09/25 14:59  
It's NOT CONDO, STRATA nor BUILDING SCHEME. Nor is this legal advice.

But it's the sort of liability nightmare that legislatively deemed "occupiers" need to try to avoid. Eyes wide open it's worth regularly reviewing activities & risks with competent legal counsel.

Who wants to spoil some child's fun ? Or even dares nowadays to risk asking a child to refrain from something ? It's not 1950 with every male child wearing a brushcut.

Maybe worse, Ontario "Occupiers" are vulnerable to get legislatively dragged into negligence law which is legislated joint & several even if a minor age injury-causer has parents with bucks & /or insurance.

Why sue a minor ( ? parents have bucks ? ) if instead a potential arms-length defendant with deep pockets, can be better targetted ?

And what sort of "factual narrative" might - MIGHT - be wrung out of a minor ? That's if the price of escape is reporting whatever makes the occupier look in breach of an occupier "duty of care" ?

Here the regional shopping centre "occupier" has pension fund owners with oddles of bucks. Here the errant skateboard's minor owner is noted as NOT a defendant . . .

The harm scenario here was Fairview Mall foodcourt where the presence - but not enjoyment usage of a skateboard - was lawful for "invitees". There was at least one ( or more ) mall store selling & servicing skateboards.

It's claimed that the minor failed not once but twice to bother stopping his skateboard from rolling away / being kicked by him accidentally, from under his foodcourt seat. ( The plaintiff was injured falling over that errant board. )

In this skateboard-friendly retail environment the Occupier's non-employee servicers & employed security are further treated to drag the "occupier" into a breach of occupier duty. ( Mr Justice Paul Perell finds that one had even been injured by the same board in the same way not long beforehand. )

Finally : we don't have a video of this unfortunate injury occurring live at the Fairview Mall foodcourt in 2015.

So instead we recommend tracking down the hilarious movie roller skate injury to comedian W.C Fields staged on a staircase in It's a Gift (1934 ). ( Please don't try this at home )

( and which of these might have been inscribed years later on Fields' tombstone :

William Claude Dukenfield ?

Fields ?


HAPPIER than in Philadelpia ? )

* *


Drummond v. The Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd., 2018 ONSC 4509 issued July 26/18 with additional $26K legals awarded Sep 13/18
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
ONCA overturns SKATEBOARD VICTIM'S win : DRUMMOND v CADILLAC 2019/06/20 20:35  
Ontario's Court of Appeal on May 30/29 sent a message by

1 - not only castigating certain procedural & evidentiary decisions in the lower court victory of the skateboard victim;

BUT ALSO 2 - on the record totally reversing the victim's victory in lower court.

It's been an expensive punishment for the injury claimant, and this occupier apparently has been able to afford and prove a credible, well-documented defence.

Drummond v Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. 2019 ONCA 447 issued May 30/19


“ . . . [43] I am satisfied on the admissible evidence before the court that Cadillac Fairview has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the elements that Mr. Drummond must establish to prove his claim that Cadillac Fairview breached its duty under s. 3 of the OLA: Tondat v. Hudson’s Bay Company, 2018 ONCA 302 (CanLII), at paras. 6 and 7.

The admissible evidence shows that: Cadillac Fairview had in place reasonable policies to ensure the safety of those entering into the Mall and eating in the food court; it implemented those policies in a routine and reasonable manner on the day of the incident through the patrols performed by the security guards; and it had no reason to foresee that the young skateboard owner’s conduct might pose a risk to Mr. Drummond or other patrons using the food court.

In those circumstances, I see no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Cadillac Fairview’s liability to Mr. Drummond for the injuries that he suffered . . "
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster