Ontario Superior Court says it has no jurisdiction over Fairmont Banff Springs slip and fall case

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has stayed a slip-and-fall action for lack of jurisdiction upon seeing no real and substantial connection between the province and the tort dispute, and considering Alberta a far more convenient forum. 

In Pleasance v. Fairmont Banff Springs, 2025 ONSC 4728, the plaintiff was a US resident. In September 2022, she was walking between two adjoining guest rooms in the Fairmont Banff Springs hotel in Banff, Alberta, when she tripped over a threshold, fell, and hurt herself. 

In August 2024, she asked for $2 million in damages in an action before the Ontario Superior Court against defendants Fairmont Banff Springs, Accor Management Canada Inc., Parks Bottom Co. Real Estate Holdings Inc., and OMERS Realty Corporation. 

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants, as owners and/or occupiers, were responsible for ensuring the safety of patrons at the premises. She alleged negligence and breaches of duties under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, 1990. 

She asserted that the defendants: 

• failed to keep the premises in a proper state of repair and safe for patrons and invitees 
• failed to warn or give sufficient notice of the sill on the floors between connected rooms 
• did not regularly inspect the floors to ensure their safe condition 
• employed incompetent agents, employees, and servants to maintain and inspect the floors 
• created a dangerous situation for users of the premises 

The plaintiff described the defendants as follows: 

• Fairmont Banff Springs carried on a hotel business 
• Accor was a corporation incorporated under Canadian laws 
• Parks Bottom was presumably incorporated under the laws of New York, US 
• OMERS was incorporated under Canada’s laws 

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action for want of jurisdiction. They alternatively alleged forum non conveniens, with Alberta being a clearly more convenient venue than Ontario for the trial. 

Jurisdiction

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed the action for lack of jurisdiction against the four defendants. 

Regarding Parks Bottom and Fairmont Banff Springs, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that Ontario had presumptive jurisdiction over these defendants and failed to plead facts supporting that they were domiciled, residing, or carrying on business in the province. 

The court determined that Parks Bottom was a corporation registered in BC and extra-provincially registered in Alberta, while Fairmont Banff Springs was a trade name registered in Alberta on Accor’s behalf, rather than a legal entity. 

As for Accor and OMERS, the court held that the plaintiff established that Ontario had presumptive jurisdiction over these defendants, but failed to allege facts suggesting that they were domiciled, residing, or carrying on business in the province. 

The court explained that Accor and OMERS were federally registered corporations with extra-provincial registrations in Alberta and Ontario and registered addresses in Toronto. 

However, the court decided that Accor and OMERS rebutted Ontario’s presumptive jurisdiction. 

The court saw no real, substantial, or meaningful connection among these defendants, the province, and the dispute’s subject matter, which was a trip and fall in an Alberta hotel. At most, the court noted the dispute’s weak connection to Ontario. 

The court noted that OMERS: 

• owned a partial leasehold interest in the Fairmont Banff Springs hotel 
• lacked any involvement in the hotel’s daily operations, maintenance, repair, inspection, management, or supervision 
• had no Ontario-based employees who knew any aspects of the dispute 

As for Accor, the court accepted that it was the exclusive operator and manager of the Fairmont Banff Springs hotel. 

However, the court pointed out that Accor’s employees in its Ontario office neither worked on-site at the hotel, performed or supervised repairs or maintenance of the threshold over which the plaintiff tripped, nor issued decisions or policies applying to the threshold. 

The court found that employees of FHR Banff Operations Corporation – Accor’s subsidiary, which was not a party to this action – performed and managed the daily maintenance and repair of hotel rooms. The court said all FHR employees with information relevant to the dispute worked on-site at the hotel in Alberta. 

Forum non conveniens

Even if the court has jurisdiction over this claim, it said it would exercise its discretion to decline this jurisdiction and stay the proceedings based on forum non conveniens.

The court considered Alberta a clearly more appropriate venue for the action upon weighing the interests of justice, including the Canadian legal system’s fair and efficient operations. 

The court noted that the law of the place where the tort occurred would be the law governing that tort. In this case, the dispute’s subject matter was a trip and fall in an Alberta hotel. 

The court deemed it much more likely that Alberta’s Occupiers’ Liability Act, 2000, would apply to premises within that province. 

The court was doubtful that Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act would cover the premises in Alberta. The court noted that none of the witnesses were in Ontario, with the defendants intending to call four trial witnesses who all worked in Banff or resided in Alberta. 

The court added that the relative strengths of the parties’ connections to each forum likewise supported Alberta as the more convenient forum.