I'm certainly not a contracts law expert but I'm pretty surprised that a lawyer even took this case on in the first place. In Loychuck v Cougar Mountain adventures, (which is cited in the reasons for judgement document), the court ruled that a limitation of liability waiver, signed at a Zipline company (also at Whistler), was a barrier to any future law suits, for those who signed the waivers.
The court ruled this way even though the Zipline company was ~100% at fault for what happened (long story short, they sent two people down the zipline in a rapid succession before the zipline was clear, and the Zipliners crashed into each other). The court ruled there that when one signs a waiver for a "risky sport" they can basically no longer sue. Even if the rider did nothing wrong, and the operator is completely at fault.
Can read it yourself here if you so desire.
[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2012/2012bcca122/2012bcca122.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2012/2012bcca122/2012bcca122.html)
Reason I'm writing all this, is that the article makes it seem like there was a real risk that Whistler would lose here. After the Loychuck case, I don't think there was ever really a real risk of that. Mind you only courts in B.C. need to follow the Loychuck case, so this little commentary doesn't really apply to courts outside of B.C.
June 20, 2017, 7:14 p.m. - JMaxle
I'm certainly not a contracts law expert but I'm pretty surprised that a lawyer even took this case on in the first place. In Loychuck v Cougar Mountain adventures, (which is cited in the reasons for judgement document), the court ruled that a limitation of liability waiver, signed at a Zipline company (also at Whistler), was a barrier to any future law suits, for those who signed the waivers. The court ruled this way even though the Zipline company was ~100% at fault for what happened (long story short, they sent two people down the zipline in a rapid succession before the zipline was clear, and the Zipliners crashed into each other). The court ruled there that when one signs a waiver for a "risky sport" they can basically no longer sue. Even if the rider did nothing wrong, and the operator is completely at fault. Can read it yourself here if you so desire. [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2012/2012bcca122/2012bcca122.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2012/2012bcca122/2012bcca122.html) Reason I'm writing all this, is that the article makes it seem like there was a real risk that Whistler would lose here. After the Loychuck case, I don't think there was ever really a real risk of that. Mind you only courts in B.C. need to follow the Loychuck case, so this little commentary doesn't really apply to courts outside of B.C.