Who Is Liable If a Customer Is Injured at a Home-Based Business?

Alberta vs Ontario: how occupiers’ liability applies to a home-based business

Both provinces call the home-based business owner an “occupier,” a legal term for whoever controls the premises and the activities on it (this is the concept the US calls “premises liability”). Both provinces impose a duty of reasonable care rather than a guarantee of safety. The frameworks are similar, but the statutes, the defences, and the case law that fills in the gaps differ enough to matter if a client is actually hurt.

Which set of rules applies to you

The rule that governs is always the province where the home-based business and the injury are located, not where the owner or client happen to live otherwise. If the premises are in Alberta, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, RSA 2000, c O-4 applies. If the premises are in Ontario, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, RSO 1990, c O.2 applies. There is no federal occupiers’ liability law: this is entirely a provincial civil law matter in both provinces, and a business operating in a different province would need to check that province’s own rules, which are not covered here.

Within either province, the practical question is the same: was the owner, as occupier, taking reasonable care of the condition of the home and the activity being run there? A hairdresser’s slippery back step, a home-tutoring client tripping on a loose stair tread, or a fitness instructor’s client injured by unsecured equipment are all assessed under this “reasonable care” standard, not under a stricter rule just because the business is run from a residence.

What the duty of care actually requires

In Alberta, the occupier must take care that is “reasonable in the circumstances” to keep a client safe, and this duty covers the physical condition of the home as well as whatever activity the business involves (RSA 2000, c O-4, ss 5, 6). In Ontario, the wording is nearly identical: the occupier must take reasonable care to keep visitors reasonably safe, whether the danger comes from the condition of the premises or from an activity carried on there (RSO 1990, c O.2, s 3(1), (2)).

Ontario case law adds a practical filter that is not present in the Alberta facts available here: a client cannot succeed simply by showing they were hurt on the premises. They must point to a specific act or omission by the occupier that caused the injury, and courts have been clear that an occupier is not an insurer of every visitor’s safety (Nandlal v Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 ONSC 4760, paras 8, 29). Alberta’s statute reaches the same practical result through its “reasonable in the circumstances” wording, though no Alberta decision applying it to a home-business scenario was located for this article.

Defences and reductions that can change the outcome

Neither province treats liability as all-or-nothing once negligence is shown. Both reduce damages, rather than dismiss the claim outright, when the client’s own conduct contributed to the injury: Alberta under its Contributory Negligence Act (RSA 2000, c O-4, s 15(1)) and Ontario under its Negligence Act (RSO 1990, c N.1, s 3). Alberta’s statute also spells out that a client who knowingly and willingly accepted an obvious risk relieves the occupier of the duty in respect of that specific risk (RSA 2000, c O-4, s 7).

Warning signs and waivers work the same way in both provinces in one key respect: they are not a shortcut around the duty of care. In Alberta, a warning “without more” does not discharge the duty unless it is actually sufficient to keep the visitor safe (RSA 2000, c O-4, s 9), and a waiver only restricts liability if reasonable steps were taken to bring it to the client’s attention (s 8(1)). Ontario’s Act similarly will not let a business owner rely on a contract term to cut off a client’s claim unless that client is a party to the contract or reasonable steps were taken to flag the restriction to them (RSO 1990, c O.2, s 5(1), (3)).

Alberta’s Act also addresses independent contractors directly: if a client’s fall is caused by a contractor’s negligence (a snow-removal company, for example), the home-business owner is not liable under the Act provided the contractor was reasonably chosen and supervised, and it was reasonable to outsource the work in the first place (RSA 2000, c O-4, s 11(1)). No equivalent Ontario provision was located in the facts available for this article.

Employees are a separate track in both provinces

Both statutes govern liability to clients and other visitors, not to a business owner’s own employees. Alberta’s Act specifically excludes an employer’s duties to employees from its scope (RSA 2000, c O-4, s 3), meaning a worker hurt on the job falls under a different legal regime rather than the occupiers’ liability framework described above. The facts available here do not address the equivalent point for Ontario, so it is not stated as confirmed either way.

Insurance is a practical, not a legal, requirement

Ontario’s government notes that business insurance is not mandatory for a home-based business but recommends carrying it, since it can protect the owner and the business against liability and other risks (ontario.ca, “Business insurance”). No equivalent Alberta government source on insurance requirements for home businesses was located for this article, and no municipal licensing rule requiring liability insurance was found in either province’s primary sources reviewed here.