Ski Resort Waivers in Alberta: How Far Does “Ski at Your Own Risk” Really Go?
If you ski or snowboard in Alberta, you have likely seen the signs: a notice above the ticket window, fine print on the back of your lift ticket, a warning at the gate of the terrain park. Most of them say the same thing, that by using the hill you accept the risks and give up the right to hold the resort responsible if you get hurt.
But does a sign or a ticket really close the door on an injury claim? Often, it does not.
What Alberta law says about waivers
In Alberta, resorts and other property owners are “occupiers” under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, RSA 2000, c O-4. The Act requires an occupier to take reasonable care to see that visitors are reasonably safe while on the premises.
The Act also lets an occupier limit or exclude that responsibility by express agreement or express notice (section 8). There is an important condition, though: the occupier must have taken reasonable steps to bring that limit to the visitor’s attention. A resort cannot simply post a warning somewhere on the property and rely on it later. Whether the steps taken were reasonable is a question a court answers by looking at what actually happened in the individual case.
A British Columbia case worth knowing: Apps v. Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd.
Although it comes from British Columbia, Apps v. Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78, is a useful illustration of how courts approach ski resort waivers.
The plaintiff, a 20-year-old snowboarder visiting from Australia, suffered a spinal cord injury that left him quadriplegic after using a jump in the Grouse Mountain terrain park. He sued the resort for negligence and under BC’s Occupiers Liability Act, alleging problems with how the jump was designed, built, maintained and inspected.
The trial judge threw out the claim. The resort had posted an exclusion of liability above the ticket booth, printed it on the ticket and displayed a warning at the terrain park entrance, and the judge found these notices were a full defence (2019 BCSC 855).
The BC Court of Appeal reversed that result. In its view, the resort had not done enough to make sure the plaintiff knew about, and understood, the “own negligence” exclusion at the time he bought his ticket.
What is an “own negligence” clause?
An own negligence clause tries to excuse the resort even when the resort itself was careless. It is one of the harshest terms a waiver can contain, so courts expect a correspondingly strong effort to draw it to the customer’s attention.
The Court of Appeal explained why: someone buying a ski ticket might reasonably expect that the resort will not answer for the natural risks of the sport, but would likely be surprised to learn that the resort is also excusing its own carelessness.[1]
Timing matters too. The warning has to reach the customer before the purchase is made, because notice that arrives afterwards is of no value.[2]
Why the notice failed in Apps
The court focused on how the notice was actually presented. The own negligence wording sat roughly a third of the way down a poster that was hard to read, with no highlighting or emphasis, in a position where it was unrealistic to expect a ticket buyer to stop and study it.[3]
The resort also argued that the plaintiff had seen waivers at other resorts and therefore knew what to expect. The court was not persuaded. General familiarity with waivers did not show that he knew and understood this particular exclusion.[4]
What the decision does not mean
It is worth being clear about the limits of Apps. The Court of Appeal did not rule that Grouse Mountain was responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. It decided only that the waiver did not shut down his claim, so the case could go forward and be tested on its merits.
The decision has since been considered in a range of adventure and recreation cases, including snowmobile touring,[5] four-wheeling,[6] indoor trampoline parks[7] and mountaineering.[8]
What this means for Alberta skiers and riders
Because Apps is a British Columbia decision that applies BC legislation, it does not bind Alberta courts. Still, Alberta’s Act also asks whether the occupier took reasonable steps to bring a waiver to the visitor’s attention, so the reasoning may be useful when a similar dispute arises here.
A few practical points for anyone hurt at an Alberta resort or recreation facility:
- A waiver is not automatically the end of the matter. Its wording, its placement and the way it was presented to you can all affect whether it holds up.
- Fault can be shared. Under Alberta’s Contributory Negligence Act, responsibility may be divided between the people involved, so a claim can still succeed in part even when the injured person bears some of the blame.
- Time limits apply. Alberta’s Limitations Act generally gives you two years from when you knew, or ought to have known, that you had a claim, so it is wise to get advice early.
- Keep what you have. Hold on to your ticket or pass, and note where and when you saw any warnings.
Before you hit the slopes this winter, take a moment to understand how liability waivers work and how they could affect your rights if something goes wrong.
If you or a loved one has been injured in a skiing, snowboarding or other recreational accident, contact Watson Goepel’s Personal Injury team for practical, strategic legal guidance.
Notes
[1] Apps v. Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78 at para 26.
[2] Apps, at para 41.
[3] Apps, at para 35.
[4] Apps, at para 72.
[5] Ortega v. Burley (c.o.b. Rocky Mountain Riders Snowmobile Tours and Rentals), 2023 BCSC 806.
[6] French v. Augusta Motorsports Park, 2021 ONSC 8385.
[7] Arksey v. 2328544 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Sky Zone Toronto), 2021 ONSC 4594.
[8] Manson v. Mitchell, 2023 BCSC 723.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not automatically. The resort must have taken reasonable steps to bring the waiver to your attention.
A waiver term that tries to excuse the resort even when its own carelessness caused your injury. Courts expect especially clear notice of it, given before you buy your ticket.
It doesn’t bind Alberta courts, but they may find its reasoning helpful.
Generally two years from when you knew, or should have known, you had a claim. Get advice early.
Disclaimer: This content is provided solely for informational purposes and is not intended for use in any legal proceeding. You should consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
