The recent Superior Court of Justice
decision of Levita v Crew, 2015 ONSC 5316 (S.C.J.) shows the value of a clearly-worded, comprehensive waiver in assisting
the host and participants of an inherently risky activity to avoid
liability.
The plaintiff, Mr. Levita, and the
defendant, Mr. Crew, were both players in a hockey league
operated by the defendant, True North Hockey Canada. The league operated with a
multi-tiered penalty system which penalized intentional contact and
included sanctions up to and including ejection from the league. Prior to the start of each season the
league distributed a waiver which outlined the risks inherent in ice hockey,
the potential consequences of these risks, and an acknowledgement that by
signing this waiver a player was accepting these risks by stepping onto the ice
and playing. This waiver was distributed in each team’s locker room before the
first game of the season: no player was permitted on the ice until he had
signed.
The plaintiff alleged Mr. Crew deliberately attempted to injure him after he had passed the
puck. Mr. Crew's version was of an accidental shove while trying to take the puck. Mr. Levita broke his tibia and fibula to the
extent that it required multiple surgeries to repair.
The court held that the conflicting
stories of the incident made it impossible to determine whether Mr. Crew
deliberately or recklessly injured Mr. Levita, noting that testimony had
indicated that ice conditions were such that even minor, non-penalty worthy
contact could lead to this outcome. Mr. Crew was found not liable to the
plaintiff.
The court also dismissed the action against the league. Firestone J. held the waiver was clear and unambiguous as to the
risks and dangers that a player was accepting by signing it and agreeing to
play. The court did not give credence to the plaintiff’s claim to have not
understood the waiver prior to signing it, noting that the plaintiff was a
lawyer by trade who understood the “legal significance of signing a waiver
document”. The court found that even if the league had been negligent in its
duty to the plaintiff to provide a safe league in which to play hockey, the
waiver provided it a complete defence to the claims against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment