Skip to content

Legal documentation for recreational activities in British Columbia upholds validity online

Online liability waivers are legally binding in British Columbia, as determined by the Court of Appeal in 2024. Yet, in the case of Mitchell v Manson, the provider of the recreational activity failed to ensure that their waiver was applicable on the specific date of the event that led to the...

In British Columbia, online agreements signed for leisure activities are legally binding
In British Columbia, online agreements signed for leisure activities are legally binding

In a recent ruling, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed that online waivers can be legally enforceable in the province. The case in question, Mitchell v. Manson, centred around a guided climb on Mount Rogers that resulted in an injury to Jeffrey Manson.

On June 17, 2021, Manson booked a guided climb with Revelstoke Alpine School Inc. and exchanged emails with Jeffrey Mitchell about his objectives. During the climb, a rock dislodged by Mitchell caused Manson to fall seven meters down a rope and suffer injuries.

Manson completed the June 18 expedition without incident and paid $450 for the expedition by e-transfer. The online "release of liability" waiver required Manson to fill out personal information and initial his signature above the words "Participant's Signature." However, the waiver described Mitchell's company as "Revelstoke Alpine School" instead of its proper corporate name, "Revelstoke Alpine School Inc."

The waiver only allowed Manson to select one specific date, which he chose as June 18, 2021. The Court of Appeal determined that the waiver would have been enforceable if it had agreed that it applied to the July 15 expedition, but it did not. As a result, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, declining to find that the release applied beyond June 18, 2021.

The Court of Appeal's decision confirms that online waivers can be legally enforceable in BC, but the provider of the recreational activity must ensure that the waiver applies to the activity on the date the injuries occurred. It is an important reminder for business owners to properly and fully identify all entities they seek protection for in waivers.

The misnomer in the company name did not affect the court's decision as the waiver did not apply in any event. The Court of Appeal concurred that had the fall occurred on June 18, the online waiver would have barred any claims by Manson against Mitchell.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for businesses offering recreational activities to ensure that their waivers are clear, specific, and properly executed to protect themselves from potential negligence claims. The waiver should be accepted by the customer before they pay for the activity, and the specific activity and its date(s) should be adequately identified in the waiver.

Read also: