Riggs v. 0838782 B.C. Ltd.

2026 BCSC 520 | Supreme Court of British Columbia | March 25, 2026
 

I. Overview
The plaintiff, Crystal Charlain Riggs, alleged that she slipped and fell on ice while exiting her apartment building in Abbotsford on February 14, 2023, fracturing her wrist. She brought an action against the building's owner and property manager under the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 337 (OLA). The defendants denied any ice was present and if there was ice, they had a system for detecting and addressing that risk. Justice Giaschi dismissed the claim, finding the plaintiff failed to prove that ice caused her fall.

II. Key Facts

The incident occurred on the apartment's eastern wooden walkway, accessed from a landing via five metal stairs. The first four boards of the walkway had non-slip strips. Two downspouts and a Y-connector were disconnected from the drain at the foot of the metal stairway at the material time.

The weather evidence was largely uncontested. Both experts agreed temperatures remained above 0°C throughout February 13–14 except for a brief two-hour window between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on February 14. No precipitation had fallen after 4:00 p.m. on February 13.

III. Legal Framework

The court applied the OLA principles from Robinson v. 1390709 Alberta Ltd., 2016 BCSC 2459, aff’d 2017 BCCA 175, as summarized in Chin v. 0880984 B.C. Ltd., 2023 BCSC 297:
 

• The plaintiff bears the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that the occupier breached its duty of care.
• No presumption of negligence arises from the mere fact of injury. The plaintiff must establish a specific act or omission by the occupier that caused the harm.
• The duty of the occupier does not require removing every possibility of danger.

• The court cannot speculate. The plaintiff must prove both the hazard or condition that caused the fall and that it existed due to a breach of the defendant's duty.

  
  Once a prima facie breach is established, the defendant may rebut it by demonstrating a reasonable inspection and maintenance system that was being followed at the time.

IV. Expert Evidence

Plaintiff’s Expert — Brian LaCas (Hydrotechnical Engineer)

Mr. LaCas opined that ice or frost “likely may have formed” on the walkway during the brief “below zero” window on the morning of February 14. Justice Giaschi found this opinion equivocal and unhelpful. Mr. LaCas failed to identify any source of water that could have frozen overnight, did not account for radiated heat from the adjacent building, and his reliance on the broken drainpipe was undermined by the complete absence of rainfall.

Defendants’ Expert — Dr. Andrew Weaver (Climate Scientist, UVic Professor)

Dr. Weaver opined it was “very unlikely” any ice or frost was present. He identified three reasons: (1) back-radiation from the building wall and nearby shrubbery would have prevented surface temperatures from reaching zero; (2) ground temperatures would not have been frozen given four preceding days with above-zero daytime highs; and (3) sunrise at 7:20 a.m. would have melted any frost before the incident. The court preferred Dr. Weaver’s opinion
 

V. Credibility Findings

The court subjected the evidence of the plaintiff and her husband (Ronald Riggs) to heightened scrutiny given their interest in the outcome, and identified the following concerns:

• The plaintiff did not actually observe ice. Her belief was an inference drawn from photographs and from her husband brushing her back after the fall.
• The plaintiff speculated that it had rained the night before, which was directly contradicted by the weather records.
• The plaintiff gave inconsistent evidence at trial and at her examination for discovery regarding prior icy conditions and the weather the previous day.
• The plaintiff gave inconsistent evidence about the precise location of her fall, undermining any connection to the broken downspout.
• Mr. Riggs’s testimony that he observed ice one-quarter of an inch thick was irreconcilable with his own photographs, which the court found showed no ice.

The court rejected the evidence of both witnesses and found as a fact that no ice was present on the walkway at the time of the fall.
 

VI. Outcome and Practical Takeaways

The claim was dismissed with leave to speak to costs. This decision reinforces that a plaintiff alleging a slip and fall on ice must adduce positive evidence of ice, not merely an inference. Courts will not speculate to fill evidentiary gaps.