Homeowner Not Responsible for Injury of Contractor in Home Renovation

April 25, 2018, Kitchener, Ontario

Posted by: Robert Deutschmann, Personal Injury Lawyer

Osmond v. Watkins, 2018 ONCA 386 (CanLII)

Date of Decision: April 19, 2018
Heard Before: Benotto, Brown and Miller JJ.A.

Negligence:  homeowner (lay people) not responsible for negligence, breach of duty of care and breach of duty pursuant to Occupier’s Liability Act when contractor is injured; duty of occupier only encompasses safety of premises not telling contractor how to practice his profession

On appeal from the order of Justice David A. Broad of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 27, 2017, with reasons reported at 2017 ONSC 5729 (CanLII).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Christopher and Jasmine Watkins hired Tony Osmond to complete the construction of a two-story front porch at their residence. Tony Osmond fell from the roof of the porch while performing the work and was seriously injured.

Tony Osmond sued Christopher and Jasmine Watkins alleging negligence, breach of duty of care, and breach of their duty under s. 3(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, to “take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.” His primary allegation was that the respondent homeowners, as the occupier of the premises on which the construction work was performed, were negligent in failing to provide him with safety equipment.

Christopher and Jasmine Watkins moved for and obtained summary judgment dismissing Tony Osmond’s action. Tony Osmond appeals with the argument that since material facts were in dispute and the credibility of the parties was in issue, the motion judge erred in concluding there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The Appeal Justices were not persuaded by Tony Osmond’s submission.

The motion judge adopted the applicable standard of care in the circumstances stated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Mahe v. Boulianne, 2010 ABCA 32 ,

“When the plaintiff visitor is a trained professional or tradesman who is retained by the occupier to provide skilled work, the duty of the occupier only encompasses the safety of the premises, but does not extend to telling the visitor how to practice his occupation.”

“It must be remembered that where a lay customer engages a professional or tradesman, it is presumed that the tradesman knows how to do the work. Any advice respecting the work is presumed to come from the tradesman to the lay customer, not from the lay customer to the tradesman. If the tradesman fails to do the work properly or safely, he cannot blame his customer on the basis that the customer should have known better.”

Tony Osmond’s duty, as the occupier of the premises, was to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe. He had no overriding duty to monitor whether the practices followed by the professional electrician respondent were safe. The work had certain inherent and obvious risks, particularly the risk of falling, which were well-known to the respondent.

Tony Osmond does not submit the motion judge erred in adopting those principles, nor does he point to any other case that sets a different standard of care for such circumstances, nor did he offer any authority for the proposition that knowledge of a lack of experience on the part of the plaintiff would override or negate the principles of law stated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Mahe.

Tony Osmond contends the motion judge made two fact-related errors:

1. he determined the case in the face of contested material facts; and (
2. he made palpable and overriding errors of fact. The errors, according to Tony Osmond, relate to the issue of whether Tony Osmond or Christopher and Jasmine Watkins controlled and directed the renovation work.

The Appeal Justices were not persuaded by this submission. Before the motion judge was evidence from each of the parties, together with an affidavit from a non-party witness who was part of the work crew assembled by Tony Osmond to perform the work.

The motion judge made several key findings of fact:

1. there was no evidence Tony Osmond’s fall was caused by any defect in or lack of repair affecting the premises or any hazardous conditions associated with the premises themselves;
2. there was no dispute Tony Osmond was performing the renovation work for valuable consideration; (iii) there was no basis for a contractual claim that Christopher and Jasmine Watkins had failed to furnish Tony Osmond with safety equipment;
3. there was no evidence Tony Osmond was inexperienced in performing roofing work or working at heights; and
4.  the evidence did not support a finding that Christopher and Jasmine Watkins were aware Tony Osmond lacked the necessary experience to carry out the project.

Tony Osmond has not persuaded us that any of those key findings amounted to a palpable and overriding error of fact or required a full trial before they could be made. As well, it is significant that in his affidavit Mr. Okerlund – who was the only independent witness and who was not cross-examined – stated:

1. Christopher and Jasmine Watkins did not exercise any form of direct supervision or control over Tony Osmond;
2. a roofer had been hired to do the roofing portion of the job; and
3. on the day of the fall, Mr. Okerlund had told Tony Osmond he should leave the roofing work for the roofer.

On this basis the Appeal Justices were not persuaded that the motion judge erred in deciding the case by way of a summary judgment motion or that there is any basis for appellate intervention in the judgment he granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

About Deutschmann Law

Deutschmann Law serves South-Western Ontario with offices in Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Woodstock, Brantford, Stratford and Ayr. The law practice of Robert Deutschmann focuses almost exclusively in personal injury and disability insurance matters. For more information, please visit www.deutschmannlaw.com or call us at 1-519-742-7774.

It is important that you review your accident benefit file with one of our experienced personal injury / car accident lawyers to ensure that you obtain access to all your benefits which include, but are limited to, things like physiotherapy, income replacement benefits, vocational retraining and home modifications.