Facts: Pavlovic slipped on a city sidewalk adjacent to a property managed by Just George Cleaning and Maintenance Inc. under an oral contract with a strata corporation. She claimed the company failed to clear snow and ice, causing her fall and injury.

Legal Arguments/Issues: The primary issue was whether Just George owed Pavlovic a duty of care. The chambers judge dismissed the claim, ruling insufficient proximity between Pavlovic and Just George. On appeal, Pavlovic argued that the judge erred in the proximity analysis and in applying the Anns/Cooper duty of care test. The judge considered whether a contractor's duties under a contract with a property owner could establish a duty of care to third-party sidewalk users.

Court's Analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, agreeing that there was no analogous precedent establishing a duty of care in such circumstances. The judge did not find a sufficiently close relationship between Pavlovic and Just George. The duty imposed by the City’s bylaw did not extend to continuous sidewalk maintenance throughout the day, which influenced the proximity analysis.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal dismissed Pavlovic's appeal, concluding that Just George Cleaning and Maintenance Inc. did not owe her a duty of care. No costs or awards were detailed in the document.

Disposition: The appeal was dismissed, with Justices Fenlon, Griffin, and Grauer concurring in the judgment.