Negligence is a core principle of tort law in Ontario, holding individuals, businesses, and other entities accountable when their careless actions—or failures to act—cause injury, loss, or damage. At its simplest, negligence ensures people are protected from unnecessary risks created by another’s lack of reasonable care. Whether negligence arises in a car accident, a slip and fall, a defective product scenario, or a professional malpractice claim, the concept remains the same: if a defendant’s conduct fell below accepted community standards and led to foreseeable harm, they can be liable to compensate the injured party.
This legal framework balances personal responsibility with broader societal interests. On one hand, individuals harmed by someone’s carelessness deserve redress. On the other, not every misfortune results in compensation; the plaintiff must show a direct connection between the defendant’s breach of care and the injury. Over decades, Ontario courts have refined negligence law to reflect changing social values, economic realities, and precedents established by higher courts. The fundamental question courts ask in any negligence case is whether the defendant behaved as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances—if not, and injury followed, liability may attach.
Policy Underpinnings and Modern Implications
Negligence law also serves as a deterrent, encouraging safer behaviours in everyday activities—like driving, property maintenance, and product manufacturing—and promoting fair allocation of risk and cost. In modern society, negligence intersects with insurance systems, regulatory frameworks, and consumer protections. For example, while automobile insurance in Ontario provides certain no-fault benefits, parties can still bring negligence claims if they sustain injuries beyond specific thresholds or if they need compensation that statutory accident benefits do not fully cover. Thus, negligence remains central to how we handle accidental harm, from the simplest personal injury to complex corporate disputes involving multiple parties.
To prevail in a negligence action, the plaintiff must generally demonstrate four essential elements. Each serves as a checkpoint, ensuring that only cases where clear carelessness caused actual harm lead to legal liability.
Duty of Care
A “duty of care” arises when the defendant is expected to act (or not act) in a way that avoids foreseeable harm to the plaintiff. This duty commonly emerges in contexts such as:
Drivers and Other Road Users: All motorists owe a duty to drive safely, watching out for pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles.
Professionals: Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals must adhere to standards accepted in their fields, ensuring advice or services do not harm clients or third parties.
Businesses and Consumers: Manufacturers, retailers, and service providers typically owe a duty to supply safe products or maintain safe environments.
Ontario courts often rely on tests that consider foreseeability and the proximity of the relationship. If it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s conduct might injure someone in the plaintiff’s position, and there is a sufficient closeness to impose an obligation, a duty of care is established. Some duties are codified or clarified in statutes (e.g., Occupiers’ Liability Act), while others stem from common law precedents.
Breach of Standard of Care
Once a duty is established, courts examine whether the defendant’s actions fell below the “standard of care” expected of a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances. This standard is context-dependent. For a layperson driving, the question is whether they observed the highway’s rules and typical safety norms. However, a surgeon performing an operation faces a more stringent measure based on accepted medical practices. A breach occurs if the defendant’s conduct deviates from what others exercising reasonable skill and caution would have done. Examples of breach include speeding through a residential zone, neglecting to fix known hazards on a property, or an accountant missing crucial steps that a diligent professional would not overlook.
Causation
Even if a defendant acted carelessly, they are only liable if that carelessness actually caused—or materially contributed to—the plaintiff’s harm. Ontario courts often apply the “but for” test: would the injury have happened “but for” the defendant’s negligence? If the answer is no, causation is typically established. Where multiple factors intermix (e.g., multiple parties contributed to the accident), the court may assign shared liability. In rare or complex cases, such as exposure to toxic substances, the “material contribution” doctrine is used to prevent a negligent defendant from escaping liability just because it is difficult to pinpoint precise causation among several possible sources.
Damages
Negligence law aims to compensate real losses. Plaintiffs can claim various forms of damages, including:
Medical and Rehabilitation Costs: Covering treatment, ongoing therapy, or assistive devices.
Lost Wages or Diminished Earning Capacity: Accounting for time off work or long-term impacts on employment.
Pain and Suffering: Recognizing physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Property Damage: Repair or replacement costs for items damaged due to the defendant’s negligence.
If no tangible harm is proven, the negligence claim fails, as liability hinges on an actual injury rather than a theoretical one.
Although a plaintiff can establish the key elements of negligence, defendants may raise defences to eliminate or reduce liability.
Contributory Negligence
One of the most frequent defences in Ontario is contributory negligence. If the plaintiff’s own actions partly caused or worsened their injury, the court may apportion fault. For instance, if a pedestrian was injured in a car accident but was texting and not watching crossing signals, a judge might find them partially responsible. Damages are then reduced in proportion to that responsibility—such as awarding only 70% of the full amount if the plaintiff is 30% at fault.
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
Also known as “volenti non fit injuria,” this principle arises when the plaintiff knowingly undertakes an activity with inherent risks—like extreme sports. To succeed, the defendant must show the plaintiff fully understood and accepted the specific risk leading to the injury. This defence can be difficult to establish if the plaintiff did not appreciate the precise nature of the danger or if the defendant’s negligence exceeded ordinary risk expectations.
Inevitable Accident
In limited cases, a defendant may argue the incident was an inevitable accident, meaning it could not be avoided through reasonable care. For example, a driver having a sudden, unforeseeable medical emergency might claim there was no way to prevent the crash. Courts assess whether truly no preventative measures were possible, often requiring expert evidence.
Negligence arises in a broad range of disputes, from everyday accidents to highly technical lawsuits. Some areas commonly involving negligence include:
Professional Negligence
When professionals such as lawyers, doctors, or accountants fail to meet industry standards, clients (or even third parties) may suffer significant losses. Courts gauge whether the professional adhered to the skill and knowledge typically expected in that role. If the professional’s substandard advice, diagnosis, or actions caused harm, they can be found negligent.
Occupiers’ Liability
The Occupiers’ Liability Act imposes a statutory duty on owners or occupiers of land and buildings to ensure visitors are reasonably safe. This extends to both residential and commercial properties. Hazards like wet floors, poorly maintained stairs, or unmarked obstacles can create liability if they lead to injuries. While it overlaps with negligence, occupiers’ liability clarifies specific standards for property-related harm.
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Road collisions frequently end up in negligence claims, despite Ontario’s partial no-fault insurance scheme. Drivers must abide by traffic rules and drive prudently—if they breach these obligations by speeding, tailgating, or distracted driving, courts may hold them accountable. Plaintiffs often seek damages that insurance does not fully cover, such as pain and suffering or long-term income loss.
Product Liability
Manufacturers and retailers can be liable if a defect in design or manufacturing causes consumer injury, or if they fail to provide adequate warnings. The negligence may lie in inadequate testing, subpar quality control, or ignoring known safety risks. Such claims can be complex, often requiring expert technical analysis of production processes, safety standards, and documentation.
Foreseeability and the Scope of Harm
Courts in Ontario rely heavily on foreseeability to confirm whether harm was a logical outcome of the defendant’s breach. A defendant is not expected to predict highly unusual or bizarre consequences, but if a broad category of harm was foreseeable, they can be liable even if the exact sequence of events was somewhat unforeseeable. This principle underpins the “thin skull rule,” where a defendant cannot escape liability just because the plaintiff had a pre-existing vulnerability that made their injuries worse than an average person would have experienced.
Complex Chains of Causation
In multi-defendant scenarios or cases involving outside factors (e.g., pre-existing medical conditions or environmental hazards), the question of causation can get complex. Ontario courts adopt flexible approaches, often dividing liability among all negligent parties. The goal is to ensure plaintiffs are fairly compensated while preventing defendants who contributed to the injury from sidestepping responsibility simply because the harm’s pathway was intricate.
A successful negligence claim entitles the plaintiff to remedies aimed at restoring them, as closely as possible, to the position they held before the injury or loss. While compensation is the norm, certain unusual circumstances may warrant additional or alternative relief.
Compensatory Damages
Most commonly, courts grant compensatory damages that reimburse the plaintiff for actual losses, including:
Special Damages: Documented out-of-pocket expenses like medical fees, physiotherapy costs, property repairs, or specialized care.
General Damages: Monetary awards for less tangible harms such as pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
Future Loss of Income: If injuries hamper the plaintiff’s career trajectory or earning capacity, damages can reflect ongoing wage losses or reduced career opportunities.
Aggravated and Punitive Damages
While pure negligence usually does not rise to the level of malice, courts can still award aggravated damages if the defendant’s conduct aggravated the plaintiff’s injury or distress in a manner beyond ordinary negligence. Punitive damages—meant to punish and deter—are rare in negligence but may apply if the defendant’s behaviour was egregiously reckless or showed wilful disregard for public safety (e.g., knowingly allowing a dangerous hazard to persist).
Injunctive Relief
Where a hazardous condition or ongoing risk remains, a plaintiff might seek an injunction ordering the defendant to fix the issue or cease harmful activities. This remedy can be crucial in environmental, property, or nuisance-related negligence cases where monetary damages alone will not end the danger. An injunction compels proactive measures, ensuring future injuries are prevented.
If you believe you have a negligence claim or need to defend against one, reach out to Grigoras Law. We proudly represent individuals, businesses, and organizations across Ontario in a broad spectrum of negligence disputes. Our firm is dedicated to:
Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.
Not automatically. The plaintiff must show the store owed a duty of care (generally, yes, as an occupier), that the store breached this duty by failing to clean or warn about the hazard, and that this breach caused the slip and fall. If the store regularly inspected floors and promptly addressed spills, it may argue it met its standard of care. Courts weigh whether the store’s actions fell below what a reasonable property occupier would have done in comparable circumstances.
Yes. Negligent liability can be apportioned among multiple defendants. For instance, if two drivers contributed to a collision or if a manufacturer plus a negligent repair service both played roles in a product malfunction, each may bear a portion of the damages. The plaintiff may recover their award from one or more defendants, who then settle shares among themselves, depending on each defendant’s degree of fault.
Insurance often intersects with negligence claims, especially in motor vehicle accidents or homeowner liability cases. Insurers typically defend claims on behalf of their policyholders, negotiating settlements or going to trial if necessary. While insurance might streamline compensation for plaintiffs, coverage limits and policy exclusions can shape how much the plaintiff ultimately recovers. It is important to explore whether coverage applies early in the litigation process.
Yes. In most negligence claims, a two-year limitation period applies, starting from the date you knew (or ought to have known) about the injury and its likely connection to the defendant’s actions. Failing to file within that window can bar your claim. Exceptions exist for minors or individuals who lack capacity, and sometimes courts extend timelines based on discoverability principles or other special circumstances. Prompt legal advice helps ensure you do not miss critical deadlines.
The “thin skull rule” states a defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them, meaning you can be held fully liable for injuries even if the victim’s pre-existing condition made the harm more severe than an average person would have experienced. Courts do not reduce a defendant’s responsibility simply because a healthier or different plaintiff might have sustained fewer injuries. However, if an unrelated pre-existing issue independently caused part of the plaintiff’s harm, the defendant might not be liable for that separate component.
Grigoras Law provides smart, strategic counsel in civil litigation, business law, and appeals across Ontario.
Smart, Strategic Counsel.
GRIGORAS LAW - Civil Litigation and Business Lawyers Toronto © 2025 All Right Reserved
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
