Osmond v. Watkins

Osmond v. Watkins

Because the appellant was a hired tradesman, the occupier's duty was limited to ensuring the premises were safe; the record contained no evidence of a hazardous condition, no contractual obligation to supply safety equipment, and independent affidavit evidence established lack of respondent control, so there was no genuine issue for trial and the summary judgment dismissing the action was correct.

Citation
2018 ONCA 386
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Tony Leo Osmond; Defendant (respondent): Christopher Charles Watkins; Defendant (respondent): Jasmine Catherine Watkins
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's Action (motion Judge: Superior Court of Justice)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Standard of Care, Hired Tradesman, Duty to Provide Safety Equipment, Control and Supervision of Work
Source Language
English
Occupiers' Liability Negligence Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Standard of Care Hired Tradesman Duty to Provide Safety Equipment Control and Supervision of Work

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Leo Osmond

Plaintiff (appellant)

Christopher Charles Watkins

Defendant (respondent)

Jasmine Catherine Watkins

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's Action (motion Judge: Superior Court of Justice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given alleged disputed material facts and credibility issues
  2. 2 Whether the occupier's duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act extends to providing safety equipment to a hired tradesman
  3. 3 Whether respondents exercised control or direction over the renovation work

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant was a hired tradesman, the occupier's duty was limited to ensuring the premises were safe; the record contained no evidence of a hazardous condition, no contractual obligation to supply safety equipment, and independent affidavit evidence established lack of respondent control, so there was no genuine issue for trial and the summary judgment dismissing the action was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondents awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes