60 Days Notice: Bill 118’s Impact on Personal Injury Claims

In Ontario, the Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act, 2020, often known as Bill 118, made substantial modifications to the filing process for personal injury claims caused by snow or ice on private property. The modifications to the Occupiers’ Liability Act imposed new notification requirements on claimants.
A man falls in the snow. The man slipped and was injured. Falling on ice. Winter. Fracture, bruise

In Ontario, the Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act, 2020, often known as Bill 118, made substantial modifications to the filing process for personal injury claims caused by snow or ice on private property. The modifications to the Occupiers’ Liability Act (OLA) imposed new notification requirements on claimants.

Rising insurance costs for snow and ice management companies as a result of an increase in slip-and-fall lawsuits were the primary impetus behind these modifications. Within 60 days after the date of their injury, those who had been injured by snow or ice were required to provide written notification of their claim to the property owner, occupier, or independent contractor (such as a snow removal firm) responsible for maintaining the property. The former provision allowed claims to be made up to two years after the incident.

The shortened notice period was intended to provide occupiers and/or snow removal contractors additional time to evaluate and manage possible claims. This is advantageous for the injured party and the property owner since it permits a prompt investigation and collection of evidence, which can result in a quicker resolution of the claim.

Notably, for injuries resulting from snow or ice on municipal land, the requirement to notify the municipality within 10 days of the date of the incident remains in effect.

The notification must be in writing and contain the date, time, and place of the occurrence, as well as a description of the injuries received. The owner, occupier, or independent contractor responsible for maintaining the property must be personally served with the notification or receive it via registered mail. To comply with the changes, a party needs only to serve one of the owners/occupiers or independent contractors.

There are, however, exceptions to the 60-day notice requirement. The limitation period does not apply, for instance, if the individual dies as a result of the accident or if there is a “reasonable justification” for failing to provide notice within 60 days.

Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act, 2020, brought about major changes to the filing process for personal injury claims arising from snow or ice on private land. The new notice requirements were intended to reduce the escalating insurance costs for snow and ice management businesses and streamline the claim filing process for all parties.

It’s important to note that the new notice period requirements were significant. It is crucial for legal practitioners and property owners to be aware of these new rules, as these developments have had (and will continue to have) an effect on how personal injury claims are addressed.

Share:

More Posts

Screen displaying social media platform icons representing online platform liability for defamatory reviews in Canadian law

Can You Sue Google for a Defamatory Review? What Canadian Law Says

A false review on Google Maps can reach thousands of people and stay there indefinitely. The person behind it may be anonymous and untraceable. Can you sue Google instead? Recent Canadian decisions in Thorpe v. Boakye and Jeffery v. Almusslat suggest the answer is increasingly yes, where the platform had notice, had control, and chose not to act.

What Every Director Needs to Know: Board Governance and Legal Obligations in Canada

The board of directors sits at the centre of Canadian corporate governance, bearing ultimate legal responsibility for how a corporation is managed. This article covers the statutory requirements for board composition, the meaning of director independence, what powers the board can and cannot delegate, and how unanimous shareholders’ agreements redistribute duties and liabilities between directors and shareholders.

Rows of bankers boxes on shelves representing third-party document disclosure in a Norwich Order application

Unmasking the Wrongdoer: Norwich Orders in Canadian Civil Litigation

When you know a wrong has been committed but cannot identify who did it, ordinary civil procedure offers no path forward. The Norwich Order fills that gap. It compels a third party mixed up in wrongdoing to disclose information before proceedings start, allowing a victim to identify a wrongdoer, trace stolen assets, or confirm whether a cause of action exists. This article explains the test, the limits, and how the remedy works in practice.

Pinocchio's nose growing as a metaphor for fraud by silence and concealment in Canadian law

What You Don’t Say: Fraudulent Concealment and the Duty to Disclose in Canadian Law

Silence is generally not fraud — but in a meaningful range of circumstances it is, and the consequences are identical to an outright lie. This article explains when Canadian courts will find that a party’s failure to speak is actionable fraud, what duty to disclose arises and from what relationships, how half-truths are treated, and how fraudulent concealment can suspend limitation periods that would otherwise bar a claim.

Confidential consultation

09000 00000

65 Queen Street west, Suite 1240, toronto, Ontario M5H 2M5

Requeast a Consulastion

our team of experienced lawyers are at your service