Dear Neil/Jason,

No not untypical although in comparison in Australia each state/territory is slightly different as to where the law may be found (4 jurisdictions have legislation 4 do not; in those states with legislation in at least 3 of them reference to common law principles may still be necessary). At a very rudimentary level:

In Western Australia similar to Ontario (although rather more wordy) provisions apply:

Occupier’s Liability Act1985 (WA)

5. Duty of care of occupier

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) the care which an occupier of premises is required by reason of the occupation or control of the premises to show towards a person entering on the premises in respect of dangers which are due to the state of the premises or to anything done or omitted to be done on the premises and for which the occupier is by law responsible shall, except in so far as he is entitled to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude by agreement or otherwise, his obligations towards that person, be such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that that person will not suffer injury or damage by reason of any such danger.

(2) The duty of care referred to in subsection (1) does not apply in respect of risks willingly assumed by the person entering on the premises but in that case the occupier of premises owes a duty to the person not to create a danger with the deliberate intent of doing harm or damage to the person or his property and not to act with reckless disregard of the presence of the person or his property.

(3) A person who is on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, an offence punishable by imprisonment is owed only the duty of care referred to in subsection (2).

…

In Victoria Wrongs Act 1958 s14: the duty relates to the ‘state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done in relation to the state of the premises’ otherwise common law principles apply…

Similarly in the ACT their Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s168(1) refers to the state of the premises… 

In South Australia Civil Liability Act s20(1): the liability of the occupier of premises for injury, damage or loss attributable to the dangerous state or condition of the premises shall be determined in accordance with the principles of the law of negligence.  

The common law applies in other jurisdictions (NSW; NT; Tas; Qld)

Sonia

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