CanadaWhat duty of care does a business owe to prevent harm to people on its property?
A business in Canada owes a duty of care to people on its property to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, based on proximity and foreseeability — not automatic liability for all injuries.
What the Law Says
Canadian law does not impose a fixed or absolute duty on businesses toward everyone on their property. Instead, courts apply a common law framework rooted in negligence principles to determine whether a duty of care exists.
The existence of a duty of care is determined using the two-part Anns/Cooper test, now refined through Supreme Court jurisprudence: (1) Is there sufficient proximity between the parties? (2) Are there any residual policy reasons that would negate, limit, or modify the scope of the duty?
Proximity asks whether the relationship between the business and the injured person is close enough that the business ought reasonably to have contemplated that carelessness could cause harm. Foreseeability — whether harm was reasonably foreseeable — is central to both proximity and the first branch of the test.
No Canadian statute codifies the general duty of care owed by occupiers or businesses to visitors. Instead, provincial occupiers’ liability statutes (e.g., Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act) set out specific duties — but those statutes do not displace the common law negligence analysis for non-visitors or situations outside statutory scope.
What Courts Have Said
The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified that a duty of care is not automatic — it depends on a careful analysis of proximity and foreseeability, especially where the harm arises indirectly (e.g., from third-party criminal acts or stolen property).
The Court held that a commercial garage did not owe a duty of care to a teenager injured while riding in a stolen vehicle taken from the garage, because the connection between the garage’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury was too remote — no sufficient proximity existed, and the theft and subsequent dangerous driving were not reasonably foreseeable.
What to Do
Identify who is on your property (invitee, licensee, trespasser) — this affects the scope of your duty under provincial occupiers’ liability laws.
Assess whether harm to that person was reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances.
Consider whether your business had sufficient proximity — e.g., control over the risk, opportunity to prevent harm, or prior knowledge of danger.
Take reasonable, practical steps to address foreseeable risks (e.g., secure entry points, monitor suspicious activity, maintain safe premises).
Document risk assessments and safety measures — they may support reasonableness if liability is later challenged.
Sources
Not legal advice. This article is general information based on publicly available sources, written for educational purposes. Laws change and individual situations vary. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before acting on anything you read here. Last reviewed: 2026-06-08.