BC Supreme Court: BC Occupiers Liability Lettuce Slip Claim Dismissed

• The BC Supreme Court dismissed a slip and fall claim against Orchards Farm Market in Vancouver, despite the plaintiff suffering a significant ankle injury.
• Plaintiff Christine Tu slipped on lettuce in November 2021, leading to the **BC occupiers liability lettuce slip dismissal** nearly five years later.
• The court found the market met its duty of reasonable care under the BC Occupiers Liability Act due to its owner's affidavit and a detailed sweep log showing hourly inspections.
• The market's inspection system was deemed at least as thorough as, if not more so than, standards set in previous cases.
• A key factor in the dismissal was the plaintiff's failure to challenge the sweep log evidence through further discovery, despite having it for nearly a year.

The court concluded that Orchards' system was at least as thorough, if not more so, than those previously deemed acceptable, thereby satisfying the reasonable care requirement.

A recent decision by the BC Supreme Court has dismissed a significant personal injury claim, underscoring the critical role of diligent record-keeping in occupiers' liability cases. The ruling in *Tu v. 12300118 Holdings Ltd.*, 2026 BCSC 1387, concluded nearly five years of litigation stemming from a slip and fall incident at a Vancouver produce store.

Christine Tu initiated the claim after sustaining a significant ankle injury in November 2021, when she slipped on a piece of lettuce at Orchards Farm Market. Despite the acknowledged occurrence of the fall and the severity of the injury, the court ultimately found in favor of the defendant, 12300118 Holdings Ltd., which operates the market. The core reason for the dismissal of the **BC occupiers liability lettuce slip dismissal** claim was the store's comprehensive documentation and adherence to safety protocols, rather than a dispute over the incident itself.

The court's decision, which also awarded costs to the defendants, provides a clear benchmark for the standard of care expected from occupiers under British Columbia's legal framework. It highlights that while injuries are regrettable, the legal burden often shifts to demonstrating that an occupier has taken all reasonable steps to ensure safety, a standard the court found the market had successfully met.

Central to the defense in the **slip and fall claim Vancouver** was the testimony and evidence presented by Regina Shui Hing Wong, the owner and manager of Orchards Farm Market. Wong submitted an affidavit detailing her extensive experience—over 40 years in a fish factory—and her knowledge, partly derived from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which informed her approach to slip and fall prevention. She affirmed that she personally trained employees in these crucial safety measures.

Crucially, Wong's affidavit was accompanied by a **sweep log evidence personal injury** document for November 2021. This daily checklist meticulously recorded hourly inspections of the premises. Specifically, every box on the log between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on November 30, 2021—the day of the incident—was initialled, indicating that inspections had been carried out as scheduled. Tu attempted to challenge Wong's credibility, alleging contradictions between her affidavit and her discovery evidence. However, the court found no such inconsistencies, confirming that Wong's statements consistently indicated that employees were trained to conduct roughly hourly inspections and to immediately address any identified hazards.

The legal foundation for this case rests on Section 3 of the **BC Occupiers Liability Act (OLA)**, which mandates that occupiers must take reasonable care to ensure that individuals on their premises are reasonably safe. The court emphasized that the operative word here is 'reasonable,' clarifying that the OLA does not demand perfection from occupiers, nor does it render them insurers of visitor safety. To meet this **occupiers liability reasonable care standard**, an occupier must generally demonstrate both the establishment of a diligent system for hazard management and its consistent application.

In assessing Orchards Farm Market's system, the court drew comparisons to previous cases. It noted that Orchards' practice of hourly inspections surpassed the two-hour inspection standard established in the *Charlie* case. Furthermore, it contrasted Orchards' structured approach with the *Wong* case, where no regular inspection system was in place, relying instead on 'as needed' cleaning. The court concluded that Orchards' system was at least as thorough, if not more so, than those previously deemed acceptable, thereby satisfying the reasonable care requirement.

Beyond the substantive issues of occupiers' liability, the case of *Tu v. 12300118 Holdings Ltd.* also delivered a significant procedural lesson for litigants. The plaintiff, Christine Tu, had been in possession of the November 2021 sweep log for nearly a year prior to the hearing. Despite this, she did not pursue further examination of Regina Shui Hing Wong regarding the log's contents. This omission proved to be a critical misstep.

The court, referencing *Rahnama v. Loblaws City Market*, 2024 BCSC 2120 (a ruling later affirmed), held that a party cannot simply rely on the hope that 'something might turn up' at a full trial when they have failed to adequately challenge evidence already in their possession. This aspect of the ruling strongly reinforces that for plaintiffs in **personal injury** cases, merely **challenging sweep log discovery** without presenting concrete contradictory evidence—whether through additional discovery, witness statements, or other records—is unlikely to be sufficient to overcome robust documentation provided by the defense. This case serves as a clear benchmark for legal professionals on both sides, highlighting the importance of thorough preparation and proactive engagement with discovery materials.

This ruling provides a clear benchmark for personal injury lawyers regarding the 'reasonable care' standard under BC's Occupiers Liability Act, emphasizing the importance of robust documentation (like sweep logs) for occupiers and the need for plaintiffs to present concrete contradictory evidence, not just challenge existing records, to succeed in slip and fall claims. Lawyers should advise clients on the critical role of diligent record-keeping and proper discovery procedures.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer