T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. v. Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd., 2026 ONCA 371
Property owners are not insurers against every accident that occurs on their land. However, when they are aware of a hidden danger that is not apparent to visitors, they may have a legal obligation to provide a warning.
That principle was recently reinforced by the Ontario Court of Appeal in T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. v. Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd., 2026 ONCA 371, a decision that provides important guidance on the scope of an occupier’s duty under Ontario’s Occupiers’ Liability Act.
Facts
The defendant operated a large dairy and cash-crop farm near Napanee, Ontario. A private bridge crossed the Napanee River and provided access to fields on both sides of the property.
The bridge had been rebuilt in 1980. While the bridge appeared to be approximately sixteen feet wide, only the centre ten feet was actually supported by steel beams. The outer three feet on each side consisted of wooden decking that extended beyond the supporting structure. Those portions of the bridge had no support underneath.
For approximately twenty years, T.C.O. Agromart had been hired to provide crop-spraying services on the farm.
During one such operation, an Agromart employee drove a crop sprayer across the bridge. As the sprayer crossed, it drifted slightly to the right. The right front wheel moved onto the unsupported overhang, causing that section of the bridge to collapse. The sprayer plunged into the river below.
Fortunately, the driver escaped serious injury. The crop sprayer, however, sustained extensive damage.
The insurer for Agromart paid the loss and commenced an action against the farm owner seeking recovery of those amounts.
The Trial Decision
At trial, the action was dismissed.
The Trial Judge found that the immediate cause of the accident was the driver’s inadvertent movement to the right side of the bridge. The Court also found that the driver already knew that he was expected to keep the sprayer centred while crossing.
Because of that knowledge, the Trial Judge concluded that a warning to stay in the centre of the bridge would not have prevented the accident. The Court further held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that an experienced operator would drift off-centre while crossing.
As a result, the claim was dismissed.
Nevertheless, the Trial Judge assessed damages at $423,016.15 in the event the decision was overturned on appeal.
The Court of Appeal Reverses Decision
The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and found the farm owner liable.
Justice Osborne concluded that the Trial Judge had framed the issue too narrowly.
The critical question was not whether the driver knew he should stay in the centre of the bridge. Rather, the issue was:
- whether the occupier had a duty to warn users of a concealed structural hazard that was unknown to them.
The Court answered that question in the affirmative.
A Hidden Danger
The Court emphasized that the bridge presented a hidden danger.
To anyone approaching the bridge, it appeared to be sixteen feet wide and fully usable across its entire width. There was nothing visible to indicate that nearly forty percent of the bridge lacked structural support.
The occupier knew that only the centre ten feet was supported by steel beams. The occupier also knew that wider equipment presented a particular risk.
Importantly, evidence at trial established that family members operating wide equipment often used an alternative bridge approximately five hundred metres away rather than crossing the bridge in question.
The occupier therefore understood the risk and took precautions for his own use.
However, no warning signs were posted and no warning was given to Agromart or its employees.
The Duty to Warn
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that occupiers generally have no obligation to warn visitors about dangers that are open and obvious.
However, where a danger is hidden and not readily apparent, a warning may be required to satisfy the statutory duty imposed by section 3(1) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act.
The Court held that the duty in this case was not merely a duty to tell operators to stay in the centre of the bridge.
The duty was to disclose the hidden danger itself namely that
- the outer three feet on each side of the bridge were unsupported and incapable of safely carrying heavy equipment.
Without that information, users of the bridge could not make an informed decision about whether to cross it and what precautions might be necessary.
Causation
The Court also disagreed with the Trial Judge’s analysis of causation.
Had the driver known that six feet of the apparent bridge width lacked any structural support, he might have chosen a different route, exercised additional precautions, or declined to cross with the sprayer altogether.
The Court therefore found that the failure to warn was a factual cause of the accident.
The accident was also legally foreseeable. It was entirely foreseeable that a driver operating large farm machinery could drift slightly left or right while crossing a bridge. The fact that no prior accident had occurred during decades of use did not eliminate the foreseeability of the risk.
Considerations
This decision serves as an important reminder that occupiers must consider not only the obvious conditions on their property but also any hidden hazards known to them.
A danger may be foreseeable even if:
- No previous accidents have occurred;
- Users are experienced and skilled;
- The danger has existed for many years; or
- Visitors are generally expected to exercise care.
Where a concealed risk exists, reasonable warnings may be required.
The obligation applies not only to farms, but also to commercial properties, industrial sites, rental properties, construction projects, and private lands where visitors may be exposed to hidden hazards.
Conclusion
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in T.C.O. Agromart Ltd. v. Sutton Farms (Nacona) Ltd. reinforces a fundamental principle of occupiers’ liability law: hidden dangers require disclosure.
The bridge appeared safe across its full width, but a significant portion of it lacked structural support. Because the occupier knew of that danger and failed to communicate it, the Court found a breach of the duty imposed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act and awarded damages of $423,016.15.
For property owners, the lesson is clear. When a danger is hidden from view but known to the occupier, failing to warn others may result in liability when an accident occurs.
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker
www.OntarioRealEstateSource.com