What is the difference between a licensee and an invitee under the Occupier Liability Act?

By the time the Occupiers Liability Act came into force, the line between licensees and invitees had blurred considerably, and the duties owed to each had grown toward each other. In Mitchell v. Canadian National Railway, 1974 CanLII 145 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 592, it was held that danger need not be a concealed danger for liability to arise. In that case, a child found to be a licensee when on a railroad right-of-way succeeded at least in part when he slipped on a patently icy path or, perhaps, tripped on a patently protruding shrub on the patently icy path, and fell onto the railway track below, losing his leg. For the majority, Laskin J. said at p. 616: .... I do not think it is any longer proper to hold that mere knowledge of likely danger is any more exonerative of a licensor than of an invitor. And at p. 617: .... I regard it as wrong in principle to dissolve a duty of care that arises on the facts of a case merely because the person to whom the duty is owed knows that he may be exposing himself to some danger, and especially so when there is applicable apportionment legislation. ...