Occupant (TPA): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:Trespass to Property ==Miaskowski v. Persaud, 2015 ONSC 1654 (CanLII)<ref name="Miaskowski"/>== [111] In Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. Ltd. [1966], 1 All E.R. 582 (H....") |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
[112] The Act in s. 1 provides that there may be more than one occupier of the same premises. | [112] The Act in s. 1 provides that there may be more than one occupier of the same premises. | ||
[113] Typically, a tenant will qualify as an occupier of his or her leased premises. And there is case law that establishes that where a tenant controls or has responsibility over adjoining property (i.e., property not leased to the tenant), the tenant may also be an occupier of that property. See: Slumski v. Mutual Life, [1994] O.J. No. 301 (Div. Ct.); Pammett v. McBride Corp., 2013 ONSC 2382. | [113] Typically, a tenant will qualify as an occupier of his or her leased premises. And there is case law that establishes that where a tenant controls or has responsibility over adjoining property (i.e., property not leased to the tenant), the tenant may also be an occupier of that property. See: Slumski v. Mutual Life, [1994] O.J. No. 301 (Div. Ct.); <i>Pammett v. McBride Corp., 2013 ONSC 2382.</i><ref name="Pammett"/> | ||
<ref name="Miaskowski">Miaskowski v. Persaud, 2015 ONSC 1654 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/ggndd>, retrieved on 2020-09-16</ref> | <ref name="Miaskowski">Miaskowski v. Persaud, 2015 ONSC 1654 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/ggndd>, retrieved on 2020-09-16</ref> | ||
<ref name="Musselman">Musselman et al v. 875667 Ontario Inc. et al, 2010 ONSC 3177 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/29zw7>, retrieved on 2020-09-16</ref> | <ref name="Musselman">Musselman et al v. 875667 Ontario Inc. et al, 2010 ONSC 3177 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/29zw7>, retrieved on 2020-09-16</ref> | ||
<ref name="MusselmanONCA">Musselman v. 875667 Ontario Inc. (Cities Bistro), 2012 ONCA 41 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fq3m6>, retrieved on 2020-09-16</ref> | <ref name="MusselmanONCA">Musselman v. 875667 Ontario Inc. (Cities Bistro), 2012 ONCA 41 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fq3m6>, retrieved on 2020-09-16</ref> | ||
<ref name="Pammett">Pammett v. McBride Corp., 2013 ONSC 2382 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fx563>, retrieved on 2020-09-16</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 04:24, 16 September 2020
Miaskowski v. Persaud, 2015 ONSC 1654 (CanLII)[1]
[111] In Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co. Ltd. [1966], 1 All E.R. 582 (H.L.) at p. 593, Lord Denning described the word “occupier" as “a convenient word to denote a person who had a sufficient degree of control over premises to put him under a duty of care towards those who come lawfully onto the premises.” The Act defines occupier to include: (a) a person who is in physical possession of premises, or (b) a person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities there carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter premises.
[112] The Act in s. 1 provides that there may be more than one occupier of the same premises.
[113] Typically, a tenant will qualify as an occupier of his or her leased premises. And there is case law that establishes that where a tenant controls or has responsibility over adjoining property (i.e., property not leased to the tenant), the tenant may also be an occupier of that property. See: Slumski v. Mutual Life, [1994] O.J. No. 301 (Div. Ct.); Pammett v. McBride Corp., 2013 ONSC 2382.[2]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Miaskowski v. Persaud, 2015 ONSC 1654 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/ggndd>, retrieved on 2020-09-16
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Pammett v. McBride Corp., 2013 ONSC 2382 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fx563>, retrieved on 2020-09-16
- ↑ Musselman et al v. 875667 Ontario Inc. et al, 2010 ONSC 3177 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/29zw7>, retrieved on 2020-09-16
- ↑ Musselman v. 875667 Ontario Inc. (Cities Bistro), 2012 ONCA 41 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fq3m6>, retrieved on 2020-09-16
