Sentences with phrase «requires occupiers»

The law requires occupiers to take reasonable care to ensure that people going onto a property are kept safe.

The statutory duty of care, as per s. 3 of the Occupiers Liability Act and Mainardi v. Shannon 2005 BCSC 644 (CanLII), does not require an occupier to remove every possibility of danger.

Not exact matches

Estimates vary, but it seems as many as half of owner - occupiers with mortgages pay it down faster than the contract requires.

«What urgency requires that the occupier of a premises be given just 24 hours to produce a building permit of which he / she could not have been in possession?

«We have worked closely with other services in order to ensure that that specialist support is made available to any occupiers requiring additional assistance with regards to the implications of the eviction process,» he says.

The standard of care required of an occupier to remove danger from the premises is one of reasonableness, and not perfection.

In BC, the Occupiers Liability Act covers property or premise liability, and requires that property owners — home owners, business owners and municipalities — keep their premises safe and in good condition to make sure that visitors aren't injured.

In Ontario, the Occupiers» Liability Act requires that the owners and operators of nightclubs, sporting events and concerts ensure that patrons are reasonably safe while they are attending.

Furthermore, Moses LJ observed that liability in such cases is not to be attributed on the basis that the occupier or the parents must be to blame; and that in order to escape liability the occupier is not required to prove that the parent was at fault.

Where a site agreement has terminated, an owner or occupier can only require an operator to remove apparatus under para 21 of the code.

ABA 2003 has been interpreted to require closure order applications to be concluded within 14 days of the first police application — thereby running with the life of the closure notice which prohibits anyone entering the premises who is not a lawful occupier.

The trial judge's reasons disclose that he properly conducted the inquiry required by s. 3 (1) of the Occupiers» Liability Act.

Ohio law does not require an owner or occupier of land to warn invitees to the property about dangers which are «open and obvious» because a reasonable person should be expected to discover the possibly dangerous situation and take appropriate action.

Such feelings can also lead people to avoid doing the proper research to determine whether the property will provide the returns required, i.e. whether it is in the right location to secure the right tenants in the short term and appeal to the owner occupier market, which will sustain the property's price in the long term.