The motion judge made several key findings
of fact: (i) there was no evidence the appellant's fall was caused by any defect in or lack
of repair affecting the
premises or any hazardous conditions associated with the
premises themselves; (ii) there was no dispute the appellant was performing the renovation work for valuable consideration; (iii) there was no basis for a contractual claim that the
respondents had failed to furnish the appellant with safety equipment; (iv) there was no evidence the appellant was inexperienced in performing roofing work or working at heights; and (v) the evidence did not support a finding that the
respondents were aware the appellant lacked the necessary experience to carry
out the project.