Recreational activities in British Columbia have recourse to legally binding online waivers
In a significant ruling for recreational providers in British Columbia, the Court of Appeal has upheld the validity of online waivers for such activities under certain conditions. The case, known as Mitchell v Manson, 2024 BCCA 142, highlights the importance of proper implementation of these digital agreements to ensure their enforceability.
The incident at the heart of the case occurred during a guided climb led by Jeffrey Mitchell, of the Revelstoke Alpine School Inc., on Mount Rogers. Ian Manson, the plaintiff, was injured on July 15, 2021, when a rock dislodged by Mitchell fell towards Manson, causing him to lose his balance and fall seven meters down a rope.
Prior to the climb, Manson had exchanged emails with Mitchell through the Revelstoke Alpine School Inc.'s webpage, and was directed to complete an online "release of liability" waiver on the business's webpage. Manson initialed the letter "M" in two spots to sign the waiver.
The waiver contained a "Trip Date" field that only allowed Manson to select one specific date, which he did for June 18, 2021. However, the key issue in the lawsuit was whether the online waiver was broad enough to cover claims beyond the June 18 date selected by Manson.
The court concurred with Manson's concession that had the fall occurred on June 18, the online waiver would have barred any claims by him against Mitchell. However, the court also noted that the waiver would protect the appellants from a claim in negligence, breach of contract, or breach of statutory duty arising from an activity coming within its scope.
The misnomer in the company's name did not affect the court's decision, but it serves as a reminder for business owners to properly identify all entities they seek protection for. The court emphasized that a recreational activity provider must ensure waivers are clearly available and that participants knowingly accept them.
The case underscores that a provider failed to enforce a waiver effectively in this case because the waiver was not properly presented or agreed to, which led to challenges on its enforceability. This indicates that while online waivers are legally recognized in BC, the manner in which they are implemented—such as clear notice and explicit agreement—is crucial for them to be upheld in court.
The implications of Mitchell v Manson for recreational providers in BC include:
- Online waivers are generally enforceable, aligning with modern digital consent practices.
- Providers must ensure waivers are clearly available and that participants knowingly accept them.
- Failure to properly implement waiver protocols can render them unenforceable, exposing providers to liability.
This case sets an important precedent emphasizing the careful legal management of online waivers in the recreational context in British Columbia. Recreational providers are advised to review their waiver practices to ensure they are in compliance with the court's ruling and to minimize potential legal risks.
In light of the recreational context, proper implementation of online waivers is essential to protect medical-conditions and health-and-wellness providers from liability arising from medical-conditions or injuries attributed to their service. A striking example of this is demonstrated in the case of Mitchell v Manson, where a misunderstanding in the enforceability of an online waiver led to legal complications. The ruling underscores the imperative for medical-conditions and health-and-wellness providers in British Columbia to review their practices, ensuring clarity in waivers and adherence to science-backed principles for health and wellness.
