Operators of riskier recreational activities such as big-game
hunting, parachuting, skiing, white-water rafting, bungee jumping
and scuba diving, to name just a few, have long relied on exclusion
of liability clauses (also known as “waivers”) to
prevent customers from suing operators for injuries received while
participating in such activities.
In the recently released decision of Apps v. Grouse Mountain
Resorts Ltd.,1 the British Columbia Court of Appeal
considered when and how those waivers must be brought to the
customer’s attention before they will be considered binding.
Mr. Apps originally sued Grouse Mountain for his injuries alleging
negligence, breach of the Occupier’s Liability Act
(“OLA”),2 and failure
to warn. Grouse Mountain defended the claim on the basis that an
exclusion of liability clause (or “waiver”) constituted
a complete defence to the plaintiff’s claims and brought a
summary motion to dismiss. The trial judge sided with Grouse
Mountain and
