What is the burden of proof against a snow removal operator who slipped and fell on ice at a Recreation Centre?

22. Viewing the evidence in its totality, the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proof upon her to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant breached its standard of care in the circumstances. The defendant adhered to its policy of ploughing, sanding and salting the parking lot. It carried out its operation early in the morning. The preponderance of evidence establishes that the snow removal operator performed her task in her usual manner, which appears quite thorough. She then moved on to attend to the other five parking lots within the care of the defendant. Her usual procedure was to return to each lot for further work if required and if time allowed. It is likely that there was further snow fall between the time the operator worked on the Recreation Centre and the time when she was able to return to the parking lot. In the interim the plaintiff slipped and fell. It was an unfortunate accident but I cannot say it was due to any neglect on the part of the defendant to fulfill its policy of reasonable maintenance of the parking lot. In the words of Mr. Justice Cory in Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways) (1994), 1994 CanLII 121 (SCC), 89 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1 at p. 13 substituting the word "snow" for ice: ... [snow] is a natural hazard of Canadian winters. It can form quickly and unexpectedly. Although it is an expected hazard it is one that can never be completely prevented. Any attempt to do so would be prohibitively expensive. ...