OLA 57 +/-

Question 1

Professionals

Answer 1

1. Professionals are expected to guard against their own risks – arguably fair
2. The duty on occupiers is significantly reduced – possibly unfair
3. Creates inconsistency with how children and other visitors are treated
4. Protects occupiers from excessive liability – supports fairness and responsibility

Question 2

Children

Answer 2

1. Children are owed a higher standard of care — positive for justice
2. The idea of “allurement” enhances child protection
3. Parental supervision limits occupier liability — potentially unfair
4. No set age of responsibility creates uncertainty

Question 3

Independent contractors

Answer 3

1. The defence protects occupiers if they act reasonably — encourages fair liability
2. “Reasonable steps” is vague — causes uncertainty for claimants
3. Encourages occupiers to vet contractors — positive public policy
4. Balances responsibility between occupiers and contractors

Question 4

Premises and Occupier

Answer 4

1. Wide definition of ‘premises’ increases claimant protection
2. The definition comes from common law, not statute — lacks clarity
3. Occupier defined based on “control” — flexible but sometimes unfair as seen with multi-use premises such as hotels
4. Reform could clarify definitions in statute to help claimants