On behalf of Niel Guthrie:

In light of Janet Smith LJ's (incorrect) reference in Everett v Comojo (UK) Ltd to 'the Canadian Occupiers' Liability Act 1979' (each province has its own; not a federal statute), it might be worth noting the provisions of Ontario's Occupiers' Liability Act: 

Common law duty of care superseded

2.Subject to section 9, this Act applies in place of the rules of the common law that determine the care that the occupier of premises at common law is required to show for the purpose of determining the occupier’s liability in law in respect of dangers to persons entering on the premises or the property brought on the premises by those persons.

Occupier’s duty

3.(1)An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises.

Idem

(2)The duty of care provided for in subsection (1) applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on on the premises.

The Act goes on to provide that an occupier is not liable to persons entering the premises who voluntarily assume risks, intend to commit criminal acts or trespass.  An occupier can restrict its liability by contract, but there are limits on that.

 

Is this untypical?

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o02_e.htm

-- 
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435