What is the test for an occupier to prove reasonable steps taken by the occupier were reasonable in all circumstances?

The test is not “whether anything could have been done to prevent the injury using 20/20 hindsight, but rather whether the steps taken by the occupier were reasonable in all the circumstances”: Duddle v. Vernon (City), 2004 BCCA 390 at para. 16.

In Arkesteyn v. Burgess, [1989] B.C.J. No. 264 (S.C.) the court identified four factors that may be considered in deciding whether an occupier has fulfilled his or her duty under the legislation. These were: whether there was an unusual danger (this was said to be the first and most important factor); whether there were posted warning signs; the ease or difficulty and the expense with which the unusual danger could have been remedied; and the prior record of safe usage of the premises.