Can landlords be held liable for injuries sustained by their tenants’ visitors? A recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision tells us the answer to this question is “sometimes”.

In Chettri v Brunet, 2026 SKCA, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s finding that a landlord owes a duty of care to tenants’ visitors if the landlord is an occupier; one who exercises sufficient control over part of or the entire premises.¹  The standard of care was found to be that of an occupier to a licensee, “to take reasonable care to prevent damage from an unusual danger that the occupier knew or ought to have known existed”.²  

Issues Giving Rise to the Plaintiff’s Claim

Alice Brunet was staying with her daughter, Melvina Bear, who was renting a house from Pramilla Chettri. While Ms. Brunet was exiting the house via exterior steps she slipped and fell, sustaining injuries to her wrist and knee.

Decision and Rationale

Ms. Brunet sued Ms. Chettri, claiming damages for her injuries. The judge found Ms. Chettri liable to Ms. Brunet, awarding Ms. Brunet $50,385.83 in damages after a 15% reduction for contributory negligence due to her footwear.

The judge found that Ms. Chettri owed Ms. Brunet a duty of care. Although a landlord is generally not considered to be an occupier, circumstances can arise where a landlord will have sufficient control over the whole or part of the premises such that they retain the status of an occupier. The facts of the case, including the absence of a written lease to allocate repair responsibilities, supported the finding that Ms. Chettri possessed sufficient control to enter onto the premises to address the lack of handrail and non-slip surface on the steps.

The judge found that the duty owed to Ms. Brunet by Ms. Chettri was that of an occupier to a licensee. Applying this to the facts, the judge determined that the lack of handrail coupled with the lack of non-slip surface constituted an unusual danger. It was noted that Ms. Bear’s partner had previously slipped and fallen on the steps as well, and had volunteered to install a handrail, however the landlord did not accept his offer to assist.

The Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Chettri’s appeal, upholding the lower court’s finding of liability and percentage of contributory negligence.

Ms. Chettri appealed the lower court’s finding of liability and claimed the judge erred in finding Ms. Brunet to be only 15% contributorily negligent.

Takeaways

This decision addressed a gap in the legislation. Section 49(1) of Saskatchewan’s Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, SS 2006, c R-22.0001 and section 20(1) of Ontario’s Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 state that a landlord is responsible for providing a tenant with a unit (and complex) that is “in a good state of repair and fit for habitation”. Based on Chettri v Brunet, there may be liability for injuries to visitors caused by a landlord’s failure to repair, depending on the landlord’s degree of control over the premises. 
 

1. Chettri v Brunet, 2026 SKCA 71 (CanLII).
2. ibid at para 15